Allowed¶34

Harpreet Singh Alias Peeta v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2025CRM-M/4800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on genuine compromise; CRM-M-4800-2025 (O&M); S.528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023; FIR No.65 dt.31.07.2024 P.S. Behram, District SBS Nagar; Ss.333, 115(2), 117(2) BNS 2023; compromise dt.16.09.2024; JMIC SBS Nagar report dt.17.06.2025; Kulwinder Singh 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; inherent power S.482 Cr.P.C.; petition allowed 02.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.65 dated 31.07.2024 registered at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner(s), on the basis of the compromise dated 16.09.2024. ¶34

Harpreet Singh Alias Peeta Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.65 dated 31.07.2024 registered at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar, under Sections 333, 115(2) and 117(2) of BNS, 2023, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, ought to be quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 16.09.2024 between the parties.

¶15

Court's answer

In view of the amicable resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings; the furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

FIR No.65 dated 31.07.2024, registered at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar, under Sections 333, 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 117(2) of BNS, 2023 added later-on, together with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioner(s) on the basis of the compromise dated 16.09.2024.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Sandeep Moudgil, J.), CRM-M-4800-2025 (O&M), decided 02.07.2025: A petition under S.528 BNSS, 2023 sought quashing of FIR No.65 dated 31.07.2024 (P.S. Behram, District SBS Nagar) under Ss.333 and 115(2) BNS, 2023 (S.117(2) BNS added later) and all subsequent proceedings, on the strength of a compromise dated 16.09.2024. Acting on the JMIC, SBS Nagar report dated 17.06.2025 certifying the compromise as genuine, voluntary and free of coercion, and with the consent of respondents No.2 and 3, the Court relied on Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 (Full Bench), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, held that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, waste judicial time and offer no chances of conviction, and quashed the FIR with all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner; petition allowed.

¶1

273

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-4800-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 02.07.2025

¶4

HARPREET SINGH ALIAS PEETA

¶5

.......PETITIONER(s)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶8

.....RESPONDENT(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

¶10

Present: Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Paras Khindri, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(Oral)

¶15

This is a petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.65, dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 333, 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 117(2) of BNS, 2023 added later-on, registered at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.09.2024 (Annexures P-2).

¶16

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.

¶17

Anuradha 2025.07.03 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-4800-2025 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

Vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 27.05.2025, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the compromise was called for.

¶21

The report dated 17.06.2025 has been received from JMIC, SBS Nagar, stating that the parties have entered into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that he has no objection if the petition is allowed.

¶23

Full Bench of this Court in ‘ Kulwinder Singh and others

¶24

vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052’ , has held:-

¶25

“ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶26

The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

¶27

Anuradha 2025.07.03 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-4800-2025 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ' Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012) 10 SCC 303'. Furthermore, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ' Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur

¶31

and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641 '.

¶32

It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.

¶33

In view of above, FIR No.65, dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 333, 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 117(2) of BNS, 2023 added later-on, registered at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.09.2024 (Annexures P-2), is quashed qua the petitioner(s).

¶34

The present petition is hereby allowed.

¶35

02.07.2025 anuradha

¶36

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

Anuradha 2025.07.03 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harpreet Singh Alias Peeta v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh Alias Peeta v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Vikas Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Indian Acrylics Ltd. Vs M/S Rishab Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Kapil Dev Vs Jatinder Nath and Ors.

Joginder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Brar Alias Amarjit Singh Alias Bagga Vs State of Punjab