374 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08-09-2025 Hemant Karkra alias Honey and others ........Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. T.S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Kundu, AAG, Punjab.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)

FIR Dated Police Station Sections No.

101 27.8.2024 City Rampura, District 109, 125, 324(4), 351(2), 191(3) and Bathinda 190 BNS and 25 and 27 Arms Act.

The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s).

2. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent nos.2 to 4.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

4. The State’s counsel has filed reply and severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence.

5. A perusal of the reasons for settlement, as mentioned in the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, are formal, and no reasons for carving out an exception is made out for disruption of the criminal trial in a serious matter involving 109 BNS. In the present case, the offences under sections 109, 191(3) and 190 BNS, 2023 are not compoundable under Section 359 BNSS, 2023. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the parties have not mentioned any reason which led to settlement of dispute, how their relations were on the date of affidavit and statement, what social objective would be achieved by disrupting the motion of criminal prosecution. Neither the accused nor the complainant stated about their being relatives, or friends, or associates, or classmates, or companions, or in any manner close to each other. Thus, based on the nature of compromise papers and the contents of statement of the petition, wherein it is stated that with the intervention of the people of locality, the matter was compromised, is not sufficient to accept the compromise.

6. As per paragraph 3 of the petition, the only reason mentioned for quashing of the present FIR is that “the parties have resolved their differences amicably and do not have any further grudge against each other. Both the parties are young persons and there is no previous enmity between the parties.” However, one of the offences in which the petitioners have been arraigned as accused is offence under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC). When the offence committed falls under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC), then the reasons for compromise have to be very exceptional.

7. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014:INSC:217 [Para 24-25, 31], 2014 (6)

SCC 466, a two-member bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [24]. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307, IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare Decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision making which requires `certainty' too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernable and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance. The related objective