Kuldeep Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

%�� &��'��(�)��&�� +��+��,�-��.��/0��%,�� ,%��,�(��'��%%)1%2��%%(1�2��%��1�2��-1(2��,�-� ��3�'��4��5�� '��/�6�3+��3��5��33� ��#��.��'��7��#��'�7��7�� %8�,��,�(�1!��9��2��

¶16

�� Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as averred in the petition, are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Sunil Kumar, who stated that on 02.01.2025, at about 8:00 p.m., while he was on his way home, VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶18

��

¶19

the accused persons, including the petitioner herein, were standing nearby owing to an alleged prior grudge. Kuldeep Kumar raised a loud lalkara and assaulted the complainant party, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. It was further stated by the complainant that the injured persons were admitted to Civil Hospital, Abohar, where the attending doctor reported that Om Parkash had suffered a head injury and was referred to GGS Medical College, Faridkot, for further treatment. The occurrence was stated to have been reported to the police, whereupon investigation was undertaken and the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

¶20

-�� :��#��3��5�33�� ;�� 0��5�<��<��5��<�� '��#3��7�#��7��5�#��3�� 7�'�#3&��3<��

¶21

(�� :��5��'��#��3��3� =��>033�.��<��%(�,��,�(��=�� 7��'��'�7��7��<��#��5�� 5��'�33��

¶22

�� %(�,��,�(��'��3��&�#�� '��+��'��!��3��#�� '��<��7��?��'��3��%^�� =3��!#��<��7��%�� ,;�%%��,�(��:��3�<��9��'��

¶23

(I) As per above statement of parties, it appears that the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise and the compromise between them is genuine.

¶24

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶26

�-��

¶27

(II) As per above statement of parties, statement of Investigating Officer and as per report, in the present FIR, four persons namely petitioner no.1 Kuldeep Kumar, petitioner no.2 Mahinder Kumar, petitioner no.3 Birbal Ram, petitioner no.4 Ram Saroop @ Monu have been arrayed as accused. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the above statement of parties, statement of Investigating Officer and as per report, On the basis of statement of Kuldeep Kumar (petitioner no.1) one cross rapat no.46 dated 22.01.2025 was entered against respondent no.2 Sunil Kumar, respondent no.3 Om Parkash, respondent no.4 Ishar Ram, respondent no.5 Kalu Ram, respondent no.6 Ajay, respondent no.7 Surinder Kumar, respondent no.8 Sandeep Kumar, respondent no.9 Ravi @ Bablu.

¶28

(III) As per above statement of parties, statement of Investigating Officer and as per report, all the accused/victims (petitioners and respondent no. 2 to 9) have entered into the compromise.

¶29

(IV) As per statements of parties, the compromise between the parties is not partial compromise.

¶30

(V) As per above statement of parties, statement of Investigating Officer and as per report, the challan in the present case has not been presented in the court.

¶31

(VI) As per above statement of parties, statement of Investigating Officer and as per report, accused/petitioners and respondents are not involved in any other criminal case.”

¶32

8�� @��'��3��'��7�� '�7��7��7��<��&��#��'��

¶33

VISHAL SHARMA��3��7�� 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶35

�;��

¶36

)�� :��#��'��3��<��9��'��5�� '��;)��=��=��7��3��'��5��77��6��#&�� Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ' Parbatbhai Aahir @ ParbatbhaiBhimsinhbhaiKarmur and others versus State of Gujarat and

¶37

another” (2017) 9 SCC 641’ wherein it was held as under:

¶38

16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶39

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶40

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶41

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts

¶42

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶44

�(��

¶45

and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶46

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶47

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶48

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶49

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶50

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity

¶51

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶53

��

¶54

akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

¶55

9 �� :��A��B#3��7��=��3��B Ramgopal And Another

¶56

Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834' ��7��

¶57

5��'��'��#��'��6��3��7��5��'�� 9��#��7��3��<��&��'�77��'�� '��.��5��'��5��3��<��#3�'�� =��'��.��/0��<��5��3�7��<��7��

¶58

��

¶59

%,�� C��'��#�<��33�5��3�<��'�� 7��3�7��'��<�'��5��'�� (�)��*��,�-��

¶60

(i) It is established from the report of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abohar that a compromise has been effected voluntarily between the parties and the same is genuine and without any coercion or any undue pressure.

¶61

(ii) The allegations in the FIR disclose a sudden altercation arising out of a prior personal grudge, and do not prima facie indicate any premeditated or calculated criminal intent on the part of the accused.

¶62

(iii) The incident appears to have occurred in the heat of the moment, following an exchange of words, and thereafter escalated into a brief scuffle.

¶63

(iv) Petitioner No.1 is aged about 22 years,

¶64

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶66

�8��

¶67

petitioner no.4 is aged about 28 years, petitioner no.2 is aged about 44 years and petitioner no.3 is aged 79 years and continuation of criminal proceedings is likely to have a serious and disproportionate impact on their career and future prospects and in the discharge of his social and professional obligations. (v) The dispute is purely personal and localised in nature, emanating from inter se differences between the parties and does not involve any element of public disorder or societal impact warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.

¶68

(vi) Significantly, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a compromise of their own free will, with the intervention of respectable members of the society, thereby restoring peace and harmony between them.

¶69

(vii) The FIR in question pertains to the year 2025 and therefore; the case is still at an initial stage. Putting an end to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility among parties.

¶70

(viii) In view of the compromise so arrived at, the likelihood of the complainant and injured witnesses supporting the prosecution case is remote and the probability of securing a conviction is also bleak.

¶71

(ix) The continuation of criminal proceedings

¶72

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

CRM-M-14333-2025

¶74

�)��

¶75

would serve no larger public purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment of the parties and futile expenditure of valuable judicial time.

¶76

(x) The offences alleged cannot be characterised as heinous or of such gravity as to shock the conscience of society at large or of this Court.

¶77

(xi) In the totality of the circumstances, the continuation of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom would amount to an abuse of the process of law and the ends of justice would be better served by quashing the same in view of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶78

%%�� 0��<��5��#7��#&��?��'��3��/�� =3��!#��<��3��'��3��3��5��#&�� A��#3��7��=��#��'�� allowed. �:�� /0��%,��,%��,�(��'��%%)1%2��%%(1�2��%��1�2� ��-1(2��*��,�-��3�'��4��5�� '�� /�6�3+��33��'��.��3��'��7� are hereby quashed ��<��5��'�7��7��%8�,��,�(�1!��9��2��

¶79

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JANUARY 14, 2026 JUDGE Vishal Sharma

¶80

D��+��>��	: E��>��
D��#3��	�� E��>��

¶81

VISHAL SHARMA 2026.01.28 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldeep Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar and Others 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

Mukul @ Manjeet Vs State of Haryana

Tripta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Another

Arun Sharma Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Ors.

Krishan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Union of India Vs Inderjit Kumar

Anup Kumar & Anr. Vs Abhishek