High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/48615/2025allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another

2025-09-30Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel5 pages

5-2025 217 (2 217 (2 217 (2 217 (2nd nd nd nd case) case) case) case)

IN THE HIG

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48615-2025 e of decision: September 30, 2025 Date Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner r versus State of Punja ab and another ....Respondents s

CORAM:

Present:

Present:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL Mr. Azam Khan, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab b.

Ms. Pooja, Advocate for responde ent No.2.

***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the e Bharatiya Na agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fo or short 'BNSS') for quashing of f FIR No.81 d dated 18.05.2025 (Annexure P-1 1), under Sections 333, 118(1), , 115(2), 126(2 2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya a Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short t 'BNS') (Sect ion 118(2) of the BNS added late er on), registered at Police Station n Shri Hargob bindpur, Batala, District Batal la (Distt. Gurdaspur) and all l subsequent p proceedings arising therefrom on n the basis of compromise dated d 23.07.2025 (A Annexure P-2) which is stated to o have been effected between the e parties.

On 01.09.2025, the following ord der was passed:

"The petitioner has approache (Annexure P-1) and all consequential ed this Court seeking quashing of FIR l proceedings emanating therefrom on R n

the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all concerned are parties to the present petition in terms of the dicta of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in 'Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana and Notice of motion.

At this stage, Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Punjab and accepts notice.

Ms. Pooja, Advocate has filed vakalatnama for respondent No.2. The same be taken on record.

The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner: The parties shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 11.09.2025 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion.

Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in this petition?

Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?

Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?

The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 30.09.2025.

The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of ₹20,000/- as costs with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association Chandigarh Disaster Management Relief Fund, Bank details whereof reads thus: Account No.39265696267;

IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;

Branch Code: 50306;

Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a condition precedent for recording of statements in the manner directed for hereinabove."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 24.09.2025 from the Civil Judge (Junior Division), JMIC, Batala has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows: "Accordingly, the requisite report is being submitted as under: 1) As per the statement of the complainant/ respondent Harjit Singh, apart from him, there was no other affected/ aggrieved person. Thus, all the effected persons have entered into compromise. Further, from the statements suffered by the parties, it appears that the compromise in question is valid. The same seems to have been effected by the parties voluntarily, without any influence or coercion. 2) Report on the basis of information sought from the Investigating officer:

As per the statement of the Investigating officer, besides the accused Ajay Kumar, there was no other accused in the present FIR. As per statement of the Investigating Officer, there was no other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the complainant Harjit Singh in the present case FIR.

The accused has not been declared Proclaimed Offender in any of the criminal case."

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised, and states that she has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed. 5.

Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). 6.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State Gian Singh vs. State Gian Singh vs. State Gian Singh vs. State

of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and Ram Gopal and Ram Gopal and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal . (Criminal) 322 (Criminal . (Criminal) 322 (Criminal .

(Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021).

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.

(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and charge-sheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.

The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr. P.C. Therefore, the above said

principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR as: Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice;

The offences alleged are primarily of private nature; The parties have compromised;

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature;

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.81 dated 18.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 333, 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') (Section 118(2) of the BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, Batala, District Batala (Distt. Gurdaspur) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. 10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 30, 2025 September 30, 2025 September 30, 2025 September 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No