Parwinder Singh And Other v. Ut Chandigarh And Other

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 22, 2026 Parwinder Singh and others ......Petitioners

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

None for the petitioners.

Mr. Balram Singh, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh, for respondent No. 1.

None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties. DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:- FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District 29.12.2024 191(2), 190, 115(2) and 134 of BNS, (Section 304 of BNS, 2023 added later on) North Chandigarh Vide order dated 20.03.2025, passed by the then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Trial

Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order. 3.

Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the parties appeared before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, and as per report dated 04.04.2025, submitted to this Court, respective parties have got recorded their statements in Court. From the report received from the learned Court below, it is discernible as under:- "1.

on 28.03.2025 complainant respondents Sh. Harish Arora son of Sh. Ashok Arora and Sh. Mohinder Arora son of Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora and accusedpetitioners Parwinder Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh, Rajat Dhindsa son of Sh. Surinder Singh, Vivek Rana son of Sh. Raj Kumar Rana, Abhishek Dhanda son of Sh. Jitender Kumar and Varinder Singh son of Sh. Jaswant Singh appeared before the Court and their statements qua the compromise were recorded. Parties were explained the consequences of making statement for the compromise and it was ensured that they were making statement free from any influence. In their statement.

complainant/respondents, named above, have stated that they have entered into compromise with the accused-petitioners voluntarily, out of their own free will and without any pressure and they have no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. Petitionersaccused, named above, have also suffered a statement admitting the factum of compromise and prayed that present FIR be quashed. They have also stated that they are the only persons arrayed as accused in this case and they have not been declared proclaimed offender in any case. Statement of IO, SI Kulwant Singh has also been recorded, wherein he has stated that he is IO of present FIR No. 127 dated 29.12.2024 u/s 191(2), 190, 115(2) and 134, 304 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, PS 03, Chandigarh and in this case, five persons namely Parwinder Singh son of Sh.

Baldev Singh, Rajat Dhindsa son of Sh. Surinder Singh, Vivek Rana son of Sh. Raj Kumar Rana, Abhishek Dhanda son of Sh. Jitender Kumar and Varinder Singh son of Sh. Jaswant Singh have been arrayed as accused and none of them has been declared proclaimed offender. He has further stated that the case is still under investigation. 3.

In view of above statements, compromise as effected between the above named complainant/respondents and accused/petitioners, appears to be genuine and effected without any fear, pressure or undue influence. Five persons namely Parwinder Singh, Rajat Dhindsa, Vivek Rana,

Abhishek Dhanda and Varinder Singh have been arrayed as accused in this case and none of them has been declared proclaimed offender. The case is at the stage of investigation and challan is yet to be filed. ......"

4.

There is no representation either on behalf of the petitioners or respondent Nos. 2 and 3 today. However, Mr. Balram Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, Union Territory, Chandigarh, submits that in view of the report dated 04.04.2025, received from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, it is evident that the matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise, and there remains no dispute amongst them requiring any adjudication. Further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, and the same can be quashed.

5.

Further, learned State counsel after going through the statements and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that he has no objection if the FIR (supra) and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise. 6.

Through catena of judgments, Hon'ble the Apex Court and High Courts (including Punjab and Haryana High Court), have culled out various principles of law concerning quashing of proceedings emanating after lodging of FIR, and some of them are as under:-  Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS can be exercised to enhance social amity, and to reduce friction.  Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases.

 There can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section

482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".  No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 582 of the BNSS.  The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour.

 High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

 Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court.

 Such power has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution.

 The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint.  The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order.

 The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society.  Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.  Matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or where nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or involves commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of FIR would override the public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. In this regard, judgments cited are:

1.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (SC);

Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 (SC);

3.

Ramgopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834 (SC); and 4.

Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 [P&H FB] 7.

After hearing learned State counsel and going through the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be substance in the prayer made in the instant petition that pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law since the chances of conviction of the petitioners are bleak in view of the compromise, so effected between the private parties. 8.

The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received from learned Court below would reveal that the complainant/victim person(s) have genuinely effected a compromise with the petitioners and they have no objection, if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

9.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the report received by this Court and also, taking into consideration the aforementioned settled principles of law, this petition is accepted and FIR (as detailed in para No. 1 above) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, in view of compromise dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-2).

10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 22, 2026 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO