Robinjeet Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Robinjeet Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR No. 340 dated 24.12.2020 (IPC Sections 324/323/34, Section 326 added later), Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, and all consequential proceedings quashed on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.12.2025; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 340 dated 24.12.2020, under Sections 324/323/34 IPC (with Section 326 added later), Police Station City Malout, and all consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 13.12.2025 between the parties, notwithstanding that the alleged offences are non-compoundable.

Ratio / Principle

The offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 & 34 of IPC, for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, are non-compoundable.

Key takeaways

In view of the governing principles (dispute purely personal and private; no criminal history; no heinous offence or serious societal impact; compromise genuine, voluntary and uncoerced; victim consented; private respondents raised no objection) and the Magistrate's report, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings; quashing would accord a quietus to the disputes and, in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.ratio¶42
The petition is allowed; FIR No. 340 dated 24.12.2020, under Sections 324/323/34 IPC [Section 326 added later], Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed on the basis of the compromise deed dated 13.12.2025; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Surya Partap Singh, J., oral), CRM-M-8649-2026 (O&M), decided 23.07.2026: Petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed and FIR No. 340 dated 24.12.2020, under Sections 324/323/34 IPC (Section 326 added later), Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with all consequential proceedings, quashed on the basis of compromise dated 13.12.2025. Although the alleged offences are non-compoundable, the Court, following the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, exercised its inherent jurisdiction: the occurrence was purely personal and private, the petitioners had no criminal history, the offence involved no mental depravity or serious societal impact, the SDJM Malout report dated 08.04.2026 confirmed the compromise was genuine, voluntary and unopposed, and the victim willingly consented; quashing secured the ends of justice. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

CRM-M-8649-2026 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

305

CRM-M-8649-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision :23.07.2026

ROBINJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER

......PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

...... RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners (Through V.C.).

Mr. J.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Sangeeta Devi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.340 dated 24.12.2020, under Sections 324/323/34 [Section 326 added later on] of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise between the parties, dated 13.12.2025, (Annexure P-2). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully.

This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 10.03.2026, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise.

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.23 20:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-8649-2026 (O&M)

Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, dated 08.04.2026 has been received. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

As far as the offence, allegedly committed by the petitioners, is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 & 34 of IPC for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, is non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant principles of law, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;

ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioners;

iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;

iv) that the action of petitioners do not have a serious impact on the society; and

v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means,

viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.23 20:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-8649-2026 (O&M)

ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;

xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C, to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings, 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.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, 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. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, 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

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.23 20:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-8649-2026 (O&M)

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 view of the afore-referred principles of law, and the report of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent No.2, this Court finds that quashing of 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.

Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR No.340 dated 24.12.2020, under Sections 324/323/34 [Section 326 added later on] of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.12.2025 (Annexure P-2).

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

23.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No vipin Whether reportable Yes/No

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.23 20:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document