Sandeep Goswami Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for seeking quashing of FIR No. 151 dated 29.12.2024 under Sections 303(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

¶17

2 On 06.02.2025, the following order was passed:

¶18

“Prayer in the present petition under Section 528 BNNS of 2023 is for quashing of FIR No. 151 dated 29.12.2024 registered under Section 303(2) of BNS at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Notice of motion.

¶19

At this stage, Mr. Amandeep Singh Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.2. He has admitted the correctness of compromise and stated that he has no objection if this petition is allowed. On the asking of this Court, Mr.J.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. He does not wish to file any reply as the parties are stated to have effected the compromise. So, the parties are di- rected to appear before the learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate on 11.03.2025 or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and to get record their statements regarding compromise and after recording their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, is directed to send the same along with his report regarding the genuineness of compromise on or before the date fixed in the instant petition specifically with regard to the following facts : -

¶20

JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-7005-2025

¶22

2

¶23

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.

¶24

2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender.

¶25

3. Stage of the trial/proceedings.

¶26

4. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. To come up on 21.05.2025 for awaiting the report.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, through electronic mode, for compliance.”

¶28

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 17.04.2025 from

¶29

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, has been received, which is taken

¶30

on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

¶31

“ 1. It is respectfully submitted that as per the the challan and statement of IO ASI Swarn Chand only Sandeep Goswami (petitioner before Hon'ble High Court) has been arrayed as accused in the instant FIR.

¶32

2. It is respectfully submitted that as per the statement of IO ASI Swarn Chand accused Sandeep Goswami (petitioner before Hon'ble High Court) is not declared as proclaimed offender in any criminal case.

¶33

3. It is further respectfully submitted that the stage of trial/proceedings in the present FIR is for appearance of accused.

¶34

4. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the statements so suffered by the respondent No.2/complainant as well as petitioner-accused, it appears that the compromise so effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. The copy of compromise is Mark A. ”

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of

¶36

parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed.

¶37

Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the

¶38

FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶39

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

¶40

This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt

¶41

with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to

¶42

JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-7005-2025

¶44

3

¶45

quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) . The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is :

¶46

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.

¶47

(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.

¶48

(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

¶49

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶50

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.

¶51

(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.

¶52

JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

CRM-M-7005-2025

¶54

4

¶55

The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.

¶56

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR as :-

¶57

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

¶58

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

¶59

(iii) The parties have compromised.

¶60

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

¶61

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition

¶62

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 151 dated 29.12.2024 under Sections 303(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station

¶63

Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.

¶64

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶65

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶66

July 14, 2025 jatin

¶67

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶68

JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Goswami v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Goswami 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

Prince Sharma Vs Rohit Sandwan & Ors.

Poonam Jain Alias Punam Jain Vs Sunil Dhir

Avtar Singh Vs Rawal Singh and Others

Gurnek Singh Vs Jagir Singh & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar

Arun Kumar Vs Ved Pal Yadav