CRM-M/56562/2024 of JAGDEEP SINGH @ JAGGU @ JAGDEEP SAINI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR on 27 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.0067 dated 09.07.2020 under Sections 452, JATIN

324, 323, 148, 149, 427 and 34 of IPC and Section 326 of IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Behrampur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

On 14.11.2024, the following order was passed: “This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0067 dated 09.07.2020 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 148, 149, 427 and 34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Behrampur, Tehsil, District Gurdaspur along with all consequential proceedings arising thereform, on the basis of compromise dated 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties. Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Dr Prem Nath, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and has filed his vakalatnama. The same is taken on record. He has admitted the factum of compromise effected between the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate on 28.11.2024 or any other future date as per its convenience or on request of the parties for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate shall submit the report on or before the next date of hearing. The report be forwarded to this Court specifying the following:-

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/proclaimed person, in the case;

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

3. The stage of the trial/proceedings pending;

4. If, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties;

5. Whether any other criminal case pending against the accused. Report of the trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate be awaited for 16.12.2024.” JATIN

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 05.12.2024 from Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurdaspur, has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- “1. There are two accused namely Jasbir Singh s/o Swaran Singh r/o Raipur, P.S. Behrampur, Gurdaspur (proclaimed offender vide order dt. 20.10.2023) and Jagdeep Singh @ Jagdeep Saini @ Jagga s/o Subash Chander r/o village Joiya, P.S. Taragarh, Pathankot arrayed as accused in the FIR. One accused namely Jagdeep Singh @ Jagdeep Saini @ Jagga s/o Subash Chander appeared and has made statement.

2. Complainant namely Daljit Singh s/o Sham Singh r/o village Raipur, P.S. Behrampur, District Gurdaspur has appeared and made his statement in support of the compromise between him and both accused namely Jagdeep Singh @ Jagdeep Saini @ Jagga and other co-accused Jasbir Singh (P.O.)

3. The case is pending at the stage of prosecution evidence as well as consideration on application u/sec. 319 CrPC.

4. The compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

5. No criminal case is pending against the accused except this.

6. Accused Jagdeep Singh @ Jagdeep Saini @ Jagga is not declared P.O. in the present case or in any other case. ”

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed.

5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-4).

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

7. 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 JATIN

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 :

(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 JATIN

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

8. 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 :-

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

(iii) 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

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0067 dated 09.07.2020 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 148, 149, 427 and 34 of IPC and Section 326 of IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Behrampur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), are, hereby, quashed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 27.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN