IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

289 CRM-M-48711-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Jarmanjit Singh and Another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Ms. Ashu Rana, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rahul Kumar Adia, AAG, Punjab Ms. Gurleen Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2 *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.341 dated 03.10.2020, registered under Sections 307, 452, 336 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that is a case of no injury.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 03.09.2025, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 25.09.2025 has been received from the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Amritsar. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion. It is stated in the report that there are two accused. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender and are not involved in any other FIR.

5. Heard.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

7. It is apposite to make a reference to the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein it was observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.

8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of paras read thus:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

XXX---XXX”

61. In other words, the High Court must 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 despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and wheth