Sunny & Anr. vs State Of Punjab & Anr.

“Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS is for quashing of FIR No. 88 dated 05.08.2025, for the commission of offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1), along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the ground of compromise dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure P-2). Notice of motion. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent- State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Ms. Riya Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and files Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record. To verify the claim of the petitioners, that the compromise is voluntarily and genuine, it shall be appropriate that a report from the Court, trying the present case is obtained. Hence, parties are directed to appear before the learned Jurisdiction Magistrate and to move an application within a period of two weeks from today and get their statements recorded. The learned Jurisdiction Magistrate is directed to submit a report, after recording

1.

the number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O. in the case;

2.

the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved/victims and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise;

3.

the number of accused prosecuted by the police;

4.

stage of trial/proceedings;

5.

whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. In case, the learned Jurisdiction Magistrate is not available or there is a holiday, on the given date, the statement would be recorded by the Duty Magistrate. The report of the concerned Court be awaited for 22.09.2026. To be shown in the urgent list.”

“As per statement of Investigating Officer ASI Onkar Singh, and as per the file there are only two accused namely Sunny and Ravi Kumar arrayed in the present FIR and above named both accused appeared and got recorded their statements in the court on 26.08.2026 and no accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the present case. As per report of investigating officer, there is only one complainant and injured/aggrieved/victim person namely Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi in the present FIR and he has appeared and got recorded his statement in support of the compromise. There are only two accused namely Sunny and Ravi Kumar prosecuted by the police. As per the report of investigating officer, the case is still under investigation stage and there is no other case registered against them as per record. From the statements of parties as recorded by me, compromise arrived at between the parties, apparently appears, to be genuine, voluntarily and out of free will of the parties.”

(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 chargesheet 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., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.