AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL , J. ORAL
The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of complaint case bearing No.COMA 07 dated 23.05.2024 under Section 3 SC/ST Act 1989 and Sections 506, 504, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station D-Division City District, Amritsar as well as summoning order dated 02.04.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.07.2026 (Annexure P-3), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
On 06.08.2026, the following order was passed:
"The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 another', Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC;147654-DB.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Punjab and accepts notice.
Mr. Shubham Mehta, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:
(i)The parties shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 12.08.2026 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.
(ii)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.
(iii)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. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:
(i)Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in this petition?
(ii)Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
(iii)Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 01.09.2026.
The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of ₹30,000/- as costs with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Clerks' Association, Bank details whereof reads thus:
Account No. 65004775776;
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.
It is explicit that depositing of costs shall not create any kind of equity in favour of the petitioner(s)."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 13.08.2026 from Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"1.It is respectfully submitted that complaint case titled as "Sukhdev Singh Vs. Ashwani Kurnar and others" bearing no.COMA-07-2024 dated 23.05.2024, under Section 3 of SC/ST Act and Sections 506, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, PS D-Division, Amritsar is pending in this Court and same is fixed for procuring presence of accused, after their summoning. Present complaint case bearing no.COMA-7-2024 was filed by complainant Sukhdev Singh against three accused namely Ashwani Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Dhani Ram. All the three accused were summoned in the present case for offences under Section 3 of SC/ST Act and Section 506 of IPC vide order dated 02.04.2026.
2.It is further respectfully submitted that statement of complainant Sukhdev Singh s/o Kashmir Singh has been recorded regarding compromise and he stated that with the intervention of respectables of their locality, matter has been compromised inter-se complainant and all the three accused persons namely Ashwani Kumar, Santosh Kumari and Dhani Ram. At present, complainant has no grudge against these accused and he wants to withdraw his complaint against accused on the basis of compromise and he has no objection in case complaint as well as the consequential proceedings are quashed against accused and further there is no pressure of any kind upon him in making such statement and apart from that, there is no other sufferer in this complaint nor there is any other accused apart from the accused persons so mentioned above and further none of the accused so mentioned above has been declared as proclaimed offender in any of the cases or even in present complaint.
While all the three accused namely Ashwani Kumar, Santosh Kumari and Dhani Ram suffered joint statement regarding such compromise and they also supported the statement of complainant Sukhdev Singh.
3.It is further respectfully submitted that I have perused the statements of complainant Sukhdev Singh and further joint statement of accused persons and it is clear from such statements that all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and there are only three accused in this complaint namely Ashwani Kumar, Santosh Kumari and Dhani Ram and apart from that, there is no other accused in the present complaint and further there is no any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than the complainant of this case and none of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in this case.
4.It is further respectfully submitted that all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and such compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free-will of the parties."
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the fact that the parties have compromised the matter and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-3).
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 of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is :
Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.
However, wider the power greater the caution.
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.
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.
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.
Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
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., 1973. 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.
As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. complaint case bearing No.COMA 07 dated 23.05.2024 under Section 3 SC/ST Act 1989 and Sections 506, 504, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station D-Division City District, Amritsar as well as summoning order dated 02.04.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.07.2026 (Annexure P-3), are, hereby, quashed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.