Punjab-Haryana High Court
Major Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 November, 2025
CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
238 CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2025.
MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate for
Ms. Gurvir Kaur Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Neeraj Januha, Advocate for
Mr. Vikrant Vij, Advocate for respondent No.2.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for seek- ing quashing of FIR No.0062 dated 07.06.2024 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Po- lice Station Makhu, District Ferozepur along with all proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) en- tered between the parties.
2. The instant FIR was registered on the statement of Satnam Singh, aged about 31 years, a mason by profession and resident of Village Silewind, who stated that he had cordial family relations with Major Singh 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -2- of Village Akbar Wala for the past 4-5 years. However, for the previous few months, Major Singh had been harbouring suspicion that Satnam Singh was having illicit relations with his wife, despite Satnam having taken oaths at religious places denying the allegation. On 01.06.2024, at about 10:00-10:15 p.m., while Satnam Singh was at his in-laws' house in Village Shera Man- dhar, Major Singh along with several named associates and armed with kir- pan, kappa, gandasa, baseball bats, and sticks, unlawfully entered the house. Major Singh raised a lalkara accusing Satnam of illicit relations and thereaf- ter attacked him with a kirpan, causing injuries. The other accused persons also inflicted multiple blows with their respective weapons, resulting in seri- ous injuries to Satnam Singh. The assailants further damaged household arti- cles in the in-laws' house. Upon hearing the commotion, neighbours gath- ered, whereafter the accused persons fled on their motorcycles while issuing threats. Satnam Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Zira, and thereafter re- ferred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot, owing to the seriousness of his injuries. He alleged that the motive for the attack was Major Singh's suspicion of illicit relations and sought legal action against all named assailants.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement the instant FIR was reg- istered.
4. However, on 08.08.2024, the parties compromised the matter and filed the present petition for seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise.
5. Short report by way of affidavit dated 20.11.2025 of Mr. Jaspal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police(Sub Division), Zira, District 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -3- Ferozepur on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record.
6. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2025 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.
7. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the Ju- dicial Magistrate First Class, Zira, vide Memo No.884 dated 14.11.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
"After going through the statements of the parties and Investi- gating officer ASI Ranjit Singh, following report is prepared:-
i) As per record, statements of parties and investigating of- ficer, there are six persons namely:-
(1) Major Singh son of Jaswant Singh (2) Paramjeet Singh son of Jaswant Singh, both residents of Akbar wala Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur (3) Kuldeep Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of village Khiyali Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur (4) Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi son of Paramjeet Singh, resident of Burj Mohammad Shah, Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur (5) Manpreet Singh son of Major Singh, resident of village Khiyali, Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur (6) Gurlal Singh son of Tarsem Singh, resident of Burj Mo-
hammad Shah Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur arrayed as ac- cused in this FIR.
(ii) There is one complainant/Victim namely Satnam Singh son of Teja Singh resident of Village Silewind, Tehsil Zira and Dis- trict Ferozepur.
(iii) As per record and statement of investigating officer all the accused and complainant/victims are party to compromise and they all have appeared in court and suffered statement qua 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -4- compromise. There were other 8-9 unknown persons as accused mentioned in FIR but they are yet to be identified.
iv) As per statement of investigating officer no affected per- son(accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court.
v) As per statement of investigating officer no accused person has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person neither any such proceedings against any accused persons have been initi- ated or pending adjudication
vi) As per statement of parties recorded in the court, compro- mise effected between the parties appears to be genuine, volun- tary and without any coercion or undue influence. There is nothing on the record to suspect the compromise effected be- tween the parties.
vii) All the relevant facts are mentioned above.
6. Report is submitted as desired please."
8. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the com- promise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.
9. Mr. Neeraj Januha, Advocate for Mr. Vikrant Vij, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed.
10. The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C (now Section 528 BNSS) were summarized by the Hon'ble Su- preme Court in the matter of "Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhim- sinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another"(2017) 9 SCC 641. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -5- 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to se-
cure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the of- fender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of juris- diction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While com- pounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction un- der Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first infor- mation report should be quashed on the ground that the offend- er and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -6- facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elabo- ration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the of- fence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropri- ately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be crim- inal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from com- mercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transac- tions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situa- tions fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -7- a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in prop- ositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implica- tions which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declin- ing to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The conse- quences of the act complained of upon the financial or econom- ic system will weigh in the balance.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in 'Ramgopal And An- other Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.
12. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.
13. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -8- of the powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:-
(i)The petitioner No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are in the age bracket of 30-
40 years whereas petitioners No.5 is 23 year old. Continua- tion of criminal proceedings will cause severe repercussions to the petitioners in discharge of their social obligations as well as for their career.
(ii)The petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case and they have not been declared as a proclaimed offend- er/person.
(iii)The FIR in question pertains to the year 2024 and trial is still at initial stage. Putting an end to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility among the parties.
(iv)The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as an offence that would be shocking to the conscience of the society or public at large. It can also not be termed as one shocking to the conscience of the Court;
(v)Continuation of the proceedings with the complainant un- likely to support the case of the prosecution, would serve no larger public purpose and only result in futile waste of judi- cial time.
14. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zira and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641', the instant petition is allowed. The FIR 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 ::: CRM-M-50951-2025 (O&M) -9- No.0062 dated 07.06.2024, under Sections 452, 324, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Makhu, Dis- trict Ferozepur and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed in view of compromise dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-
2) entered between the parties.
15. Petition is allowed.
21.11.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 02:03:51 :::