Back
2026 Supreme(P&H) 38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
Bikram Singh Alias Vicky Alias Akash Alias Maga - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Punjab And Other - Respondents
CRM-M-8034-2026
Decided On : 09-04-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, Dag, Punjab.
For the Respondent:Ms. Meenakshi, Advocate
High Courts may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when a dispute is purely personal, the parties have voluntarily reached a compromise, and the continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose or constitute an abuse of the legal process.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 74, 78, 351(2), 190, 355 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Compromise between parties - Dispute of personal nature - Where the dispute is essentially private and the parties have voluntarily resolved their differences, the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent powers of High Court - When the substratum of the prosecution case is weakened and the likelihood of conviction is remote, the court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent unnecessary harassment and secure the ends of justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered under various provisions of the penal code based on a compromise reached between the parties. The trial court verified that the compromise was voluntary and free from coercion. The co-accused in the matter had already been acquitted.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute was purely personal, lacking any element of public harm or societal impact. Given the voluntary resolution of the dispute and the remote possibility of conviction, the court concluded that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on a voluntary compromise between the parties in a dispute of a personal nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a dispute is private and the parties have amicably resolved their differences, the court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to avoid unnecessary harassment, provided the offences are not heinous or against society at large.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural verification of compromise in criminal matters. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. assessment of personal disputes for judicial intervention. (Para 5) |
| 3. application of legal precedents on quashing non-heinous criminal proceedings. (Para 6) |
| 4. final order granting petition based on party compromise. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. The prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is for quashing of FIR No.253, dated 19.12.2024 under Sections 115(2), 74, 78, 351(2), 190, 355 , registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) effected between the parties.
2. This Court vide order dated 12.02.2026 had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya has submitted report dated 24.03.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.
5. In view of the fact that the dispute between the parties emanates from allegations of a personal nature, primarily arising out of a private altercation without any element of public harm or societal impact, and further considering that the co-accused already stand acquitted vide judgment dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-3), this Court finds that the substratum of the prosecution case has been considerably weakened. It is also not in dispute that the parties have voluntarily resolved their inter se disputes and have expressed their desire to live in peace, without nurturing any grievance against each other. In such circumstances, the likelihood of conviction is rendered remote and bleak, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would only result in unnecessary harassment to the parties and an abuse of the process of law. The offences involved do not fall within the category of heinous or serious offences affecting the society at large; rather, they are overwhelmingly private in nature. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue, when the parties themselves have buried their differences and restored cordiality.
6. Accordingly, in view of the compromise effected between the parties and following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case warranting exercise of discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 of BNSS.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.253, dated 19.12.2024 under Sections 115(2), 74, 78, 351(2), 190, 355 BNS, registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise between the parties.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
