Allowed¶27

Paramjit Singh and Other v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2026CRM-M/10109/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; compromise/amicable settlement; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; compounding of noncompoundable offence; ends of justice; abuse of process; quietus; Kulwinder Singh 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 (Full Bench); Gian Singh 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 (Supreme Court); Section 320 Code; report of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya dated 10.03.2026; notice of motion order dated 20.02.2026; compromise dated 11.02.2026 Annexure P-3; accused never declared proclaimed offenders; petitioners; complainant; Mr. Jasjit Singh DAG Punjab; Mr. Aaftab Hasan Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the FIR (particulars illegible in source) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-3). ¶27

Paramjit Singh and Other Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the amicable settlement (compromise dated 11.02.2026, Annexure P-3) between the petitioners and the complainant.

¶26

Court's answer

Quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings; in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise — Petition allowed. Following a compromise dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) between the petitioners and the complainant, and a report dated 10.03.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya recording that the settlement was genuine, without undue influence or coercion, and that the accused had never been declared proclaimed offenders, the Court — relying on the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 (High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow compounding of noncompoundable offences and quash prosecution to prevent abuse of the process of law or secure the ends of justice, not confined to matrimonial disputes) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 (SC) (inherent quashing power distinct from Section 320 compounding) — held that quashing the FIR would accord a quietus to all disputes, that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings, and accordingly quashed the FIR (particulars illegible in source) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners to secure the ends of justice.

�� ��

�� 

��

�� !"��#��"��

�� $��%�

��%��&��#��"��

��'��#��

��  ((((

�� )��"�##��+#)����"��'�� Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab

¶10

Mr. Aaftab Hasan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ((((

¶11

��

¶12

�� ,"��'��'��"��&��-�#��.%��"��!��/0��1�� #��#����!��#�%�#�� 2���333*�32��#�3�2�� 41 * ��3 ��-�� ,��#�* ��5��"��'%� * ��# ��-- ��"�� .%��-�'��#��!��!��"��"��&��'�� dated 11.02.2026, Annexure P-3 �

¶13

This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 20.02.2026, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

¶14

In pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 10.03.2026 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dasuya. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is

¶15

DINESH 2026.04.10 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

��

¶17

quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion. It is stated in the report that the accused have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.

¶19

The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of noncompoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶20

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:-

¶21

“57. 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.

¶22

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted

¶23

DINESH 2026.04.10 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

�� ��!

¶25

in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX ”

¶26

7 . In view of the afore-referred judgments, perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.

¶27

8 . Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and /0��1�� #��#����!��#�%�#�� 2���333*�32��#�3�2�� 41 * ��3 ��-�� ,��#�* ��5��"��'%�, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of ��'��dated 11.02.2026, Annexure P-3.

¶28

�� "�#��$%�� $ &� #��" 6"��"��'��7��! � 8��91� 6"��"��'��&-� � 8��91�

¶29

DINESH 2026.04.10 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Paramjit Singh and Other v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh and Other 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

Case details

Similar cases

Sulender Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pardeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sanjeev Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Virender Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gursev Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

Rishiba @ Rishiba Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Another