107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.02.2026.

Pritam Singh and others ...Appellants vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Grewal Present : Mr. Kulwant Singh Boparai, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate and Mrs. Seema Rani, Advocate for the complainant.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby, the appellants were convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 459, 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced as under:-

2. During the pendency of the present appeal before this Court, the appellants have moved an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offences and for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, in view of the compromise (Annexure C-I) effected between the parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the FIR in the present case was registered on 25.06.2001 and thereafter, the impugned judgment was passed on 20.03.2004 by the trial Court. The accused, Pritam Singh, appellant No.1 and the complainant-Karnail Singh are real brothers. Even Gurjit Singh, appellant No.2 is son of Pritam Singh, whereas Ajaib Kaur, appellant No.3 is wife of Pritam Singh. Thus, it was a family dispute between brothers and with the intervention of the respectables of the village, the parties had entered into a compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure C-I. Even the parties are living peacefully and in view of the compromise, they may be permitted to compound the offences and the conviction may be set aside.

3. On the other hand, a short reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Karnail Singh S/o Sher Singh in the present case and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- complainant submits that he has no objection if the offences are compounded in view of the compromise (Annexure C-I) as it was a family dispute and is pending for the last about 25 years. He further contends that after the compromise, both the sides are living peacefully and the application filed by the appellants may be allowed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. The only question, which arises for consideration before this Court is whether this Court can quash the instant FIR along with the judgment of conviction/sentence, while exercising the inherent powers provided under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C., which deals with inherent power of the High Court reads as under:-

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

6. From the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is apparent that the offences, which are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be compounded by a Criminal Court, However, Section 320 Cr.P.C is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for justifiable reasons can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the end of justice. Thus, the High Court can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences