Yugdutt and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2025CRM-M/4593/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC (Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.), CRM-M No.4593 of 2025, dt. 07.08.2025: FIR No.507/23.12.2023 (ss.323,380,452,148,149 IPC; ss.25,27 Arms Act) and DDR GD No.16/05.02.2024 (ss.323,341,148,149,506 IPC), PS Sohana, SAS Nagar (Mohali), quashed qua petitioners on genuine compromise; inherent power S.528 BNSS; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 para 61 applied; Narinder Singh, B.S. Joshi, Kulwinder Singh (FB) relied on.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of DDR GD No.16 dated 05.02.2024 and FIR No.507 dated 23.12.2023, Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3); parties to remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. ¶¶49

Yugdutt and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether DDR GD No.16 dated 05.02.2024, FIR No.507 dated 23.12.2023 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Where the parties have entered into a compromise, continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court, and quashing the case on the petitioners' prayer secures the ends of justice, being the object of Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

DDR GD No.16 dated 05.02.2024 (Sections 323, 341, 148, 149, 506 IPC) and FIR No.507 dated 23.12.2023 (Sections 323, 380, 452, 148, 149 IPC 1860; Sections 25, 27 Arms Act), Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-3), and the parties shall remain bound by its terms and conditions and their statements recorded before the Court below.

¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing on compromise — CRM-M No.4593 of 2025, decided 07.08.2025 (Rajesh Bhardwaj, J., Punjab & Haryana High Court). Petitioners (Yugdutt and others) sought quashing of DDR GD No.16 dated 05.02.2024 (Sections 323, 341, 148, 149, 506 IPC) and FIR No.507 dated 23.12.2023 (Sections 323, 380, 452, 148, 149 IPC 1860; Sections 25, 27 Arms Act), PS Sohana, SAS Nagar (Mohali), and all subsequent proceedings, on the basis of a compromise (Annexure P-3). Acting under the inherent power conferred by Section 528 B.N.S.S. (with reference to Section 359 B.N.S.S. on compounding), and after the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Naghar, Mohali reported (19.04.2025) that the compromise was genuine, voluntary and without fraud or misrepresentation, that no other accused remained, and that the parties faced no proclamation in any other case, the Court — relying on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Full Bench ruling in Kulwinder Singh 2007(3) RCR 1052, and applying Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61) — held that continuation of prosecution after an amicable settlement would be an abuse of process and that quashing would secure the ends of justice. FIR, DDR and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the petitioners, who remain bound by the compromise terms and their statements before the Court below. Petition allowed.

¶1

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

323-2

¶4

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.08.2025

¶6

Yugdutt and others

¶7

..... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr. Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab assisted by HC Sahab Singh.

¶15

Mr. J. S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶16

¶17

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of DDR GD No.16, dated 05.02.2024, under Sections 323, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1) in FIR No.507, dated 23.12.2023, under Sections 323, 380, 452, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-2) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).

¶19

RITTU 2025.08.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025 -2-

¶21

FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶22

This Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

¶23

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Naghar, Mohali has sent the reports dated 19.04.2025 to this Court. With the report, she has annexed the photocopy of statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Rupinder Singh @ Rimpa and photocopy of joint statement of accused/petitioners, namely, Yugdutt, Pushpa Devi, Pushpinder Kumar, Bhupinder Kumar, Satpal and Sinder Devi @ Shindu Devi recorded on 25.02.2025. She has also annexed the photocopy of statement of ASI Kamalpreet Sharma recorded on 02.04.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Naghar, Mohali has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free will and

¶24

RITTU 2025.08.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025

¶26

-3-

¶27

without any fraud of misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Kamalpreet Sharma, there is no other accused in the present FIR apart from the petitioner. It has further been mentioned that the parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Naghar, Mohali

¶29

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶30

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)

¶31

RITTU 2025.08.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025

¶33

-4-

¶34

RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

¶35

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-

¶36

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like

¶37

RITTU 2025.08.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025

¶39

-5-

¶40

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶41

¶42

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶43

plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the

¶44

RITTU 2025.08.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRM-M No.4593 of 2025

¶46

-6-

¶47

parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

¶48

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, DDR GD No.16, dated 05.02.2024, under Sections 323, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1) in FIR No.507, dated 23.12.2023, under Sections 323, 380, 452, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-2) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.

¶49

Petition stands allowed.

¶50

07.08.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶51

RITTU 2025.08.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Yugdutt and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yugdutt and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Gurdaspur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Surjit Kumar

Gagan Lodhi Alias Chahat Lodhi Alias Gini Vs State of Punjab

Bikram Bhatti @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Mani Ram Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rupinder Singh Alias Rimpa and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab