IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:27.10.2025 Rashpal Singh & others ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA.

Present: Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

...

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL).

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.30 dated 24.03.2017, registered under Sections 323, 324, 34, 452 IPC, at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur and judgment of conviction and quantum of punishment as imposed upon the petitioners vide order dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise deed dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties and directions were given to record their statements before the trial Court in pursuance thereof.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the parties by making amicable settlement have resolved their inter se dispute and therefore, it is submitted by them that the quashing of the aforementioned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom, deserve to be allowed as the continuation thereof would be a futile exercise.

5. This Court vide order dated 28.04.2025 had given directions to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur has sent report dated 20.05.2025 to this Court along with photocopies of the statements of respondents No.2 & 3, petitioners/accused and Investigating Officer recorded.

7. On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned Magistrate that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free Will and without any pressure or coercion. It is also mentioned in the report that apart from the petitioners, there is no other accused in the complaint and that the present petitioners have not been declared proclaimed offenders in this case.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and besides perusing the report by learned Judicial Magistrate, have also perused the record.

9. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon’ble Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466. Reference can also be made to another judgment rendered in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Crl. L.R. (SC) 1527, wherein, it was observed that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial f