Harwinder Singh Bassi And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Another
-1THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 Harwinder Singh Bassi and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***
Present:
Mr. Sukhveer Singh Killian, Advocate for Mr. Harpreet Singh Maan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Kanhiya Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.0179, dated 09.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Phase 1, District SAS Nagar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made for staying all the proceedings arising out of FIR during the pendency of the present petition.
-22.
FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. 3.
This Court vide orders dated 21.02.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4.
In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistratecum-Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali has sent the report dated 11.04.2025 to this Court. With the report, he has annexed the original statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Gagan Arora and original joint statement of Gurnek Singh, Power of Attorney of accused-petitioners, namely, Harwinder Singh Bassi and Lakhvir Kumar recorded on 18.03.2025. He has also annexed the original joint statement of accused-petitioners, namely, Harwinder Singh Bassi and Lakhvir Singh recorded through video conferencing on 18.03.2025. He has also annexed the original statement of ASI Tarsem Singh recorded on 03.04.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial
-3Magistrate-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and out of their free will and without any coercion or undue influence or fraud or misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Tarsem Singh, there is no other accused in the present FIR other than the petitioners. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of IO, accusedpetitioners and complainant/respondent No.2 are neither involved nor declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cumAddl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali. 6.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
7.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466;
-4B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
8.
Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61. 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.
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 what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
-5and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc.
or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
-6High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9.
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 10.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.0179, dated 09.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Phase 1, District SAS Nagar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
11.
Petition stands allowed.
17.07.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No