Mardana Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.08.2025 Mardana Singh ..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.315, dated 20.09.2020, under Sections 307, 458, 324, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur but charges have been framed under Sections 307, 459, 324, 323, 326, 506 of IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made for staying all the proceedings before the learned trial Court during the pendency of the present petition.

2.

FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.3 and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of

-2respectables, 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 petitioner is 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 order dated 30.04.2025 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri has sent the report dated 17.05.2025 to this Court. With the report, he has annexed the original statement of complainant/respondent No.3, namely, Rajdeep Rishidev @ Rajdeep Yadav recorded on 12.05.2025; original joint statement of respondents No.2 & 4, namely, Mitha Singh and Meena Devi recorded on 13.05.2025 and original statement of the accused-petitioner, namely, Mardana Singh recorded on 12.05.2025. He has also annexed the original statement of ASI Surjit Singh recorded on 13.05.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and voluntary and the same is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and has been arrived at between the parties without any coercion, undue

-3influence or pressure. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Surjit Singh, there is only 01 accused, i.e. the petitioner involved in the present case. It has further been mentioned that no proclamation proceedings have been initiated against the accusedpetitioner in this case or in any other case. It has further been mentioned that except the present case, no other criminal case is pending against the accused-petitioner, Mardana Singh and he has not been convicted earlier in any case. Neither any criminal case pending against the complainant/respondent No.3 and respondents No.2 & 4, nor they have been declared proclaimed offender in any case. 5.

Status report dated 05.08.2025 by way of an affidavit of Daman Bir Singh, PPS, Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dhuri, District Sangrur on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri.

7.

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

-4prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

8.

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; B.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.

9.

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

-5Court. 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. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and 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.

-6the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10.

Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 307 IPC & 326 IPC yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have settled the dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the spirit of brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties.

11.

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. 12.

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.315, dated 20.09.2020, under Sections 307, 458, 324, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur but

-7charges have been framed under Sections 307, 459, 324, 323, 326, 506 of IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is hereby quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 17.04.2025 (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.

13.

Petition stands allowed.

06.08.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No