The court reaffirms that High Courts have wide inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences, if the matter is overwhelmingly of civil character and parties have genuinely compromised. This judgment upholds previous Supreme Court precedent and sets out the applicable parameters; it will serve as binding authority for all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana, and as persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/54130/2025 of HIRDAIPAL SINGH ALIAS HIRDEY PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011535442025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge: MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Quashing of FIR/Complaints based on Compromise |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings pertaining to non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise when the matter is predominantly of civil nature |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court has wide powers under Section 528 of BNS (previously Section 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings, including those involving non-compoundable offences, if the dispute is overwhelmingly civil in character (such as commercial transactions or family disputes), the offences are of private nature, and the compromise is voluntarily and genuinely entered into without coercion or undue influence. The parameters established by the Supreme Court are to be followed, and discretion must be exercised cautiously, especially in matters not affecting society at large. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Cited and followed principles from Supreme Court and Division Bench decisions regarding the scope of High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, including consideration of whether disputes are of civil or private nature and ensuring compromise is voluntary. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The case involved only two accused and one complainant. All parties entered into a voluntary, genuine compromise without threat, pressure, or undue influence. The offences alleged (Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC) arose from a private dispute. The trial court confirmed the compromise. Both complainant and state counsel raised no objection to quashing the proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts can quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences if overwhelmingly civil or private in nature and compromise is genuine.
- Sets out procedural safeguards: trial court must verify voluntary nature of compromise, absence of coercion/influence, and ensure all affected parties are part of the settlement.
- Endorses flexibility in recording statements through video conferencing or commissioner when needed.
- Stress on High Court’s discretion: not to quash proceedings in “heinous or serious offences” or where broader societal interest is involved.
- Explicit parameters for considering antecedents, conduct of accused, or presence of proclaimed offenders before quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the jurisprudence on quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC), specifically in light of compromises between parties.
- Cited Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
- Held that inherent powers are wide and unaffected by Section 320 CrPC but must be exercised cautiously, especially when the matter is not predominantly private/civil.
- Parameters for exercise: nature of offence (civil/private or serious/heinous), stage of proceedings (post-investigation/evidence), presence of parties, voluntariness of compromise.
- Stressed on the duty to advance justice, not merely to quash because an FIR mentions non-compoundable offences.
- The trial court confirmed that the compromise was genuine and voluntary, with no objection from either complainant or state.
- Found the case fit for quashing as it would usher peace and was in the interest of substantial justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of FIR and all subsequent proceedings based on compromise between parties.
- Argued that all concerned parties have entered into settlement, following principles established by Division Bench in “Rakesh Das vs. State of Haryana and another.”
- Asserted that the matter is of private dispute, with no other complainant or proclaimed offender involved.
State
- Through AAG, stated no objection to quashing the proceedings as compromise had been reached amicably.
Complainant (Respondent No.2)
- Admitted to the compromise being genuine and voluntary.
- Raised no objection to quashing the impugned order.
Factual Background
The petition pertained to criminal proceedings based on a complaint under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, arising from a private dispute between the parties. Only two accused and one complainant were arrayed. All parties entered into a compromise deed dated 8.9.2025 during pendency of proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The compromise was verified as genuine, voluntary, and without any threat or coercion. No other complainant or proclaimed offender was involved, and all parties to the dispute were before the court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) interpreted as vesting High Courts with wide inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for ends of justice.
- Clarified that these powers are unaffected by the limitations in Section 320 CrPC regarding compoundable offences.
- However, power must be exercised with caution and principally in cases involving predominantly civil/private disputes.
- Not to be ordinarily exercised for “heinous offences of mental depravity” or offences with societal impact (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity).
- The court may quash even after evidence is collected, but not during ongoing investigation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Permitted parties’ statements as to compromise to be recorded before trial court by physical presence, via video conferencing, or through a commissioner (senior advocate) as deemed appropriate.
- Mandated verification by trial court as to the voluntariness and genuineness of the compromise.
- Required a report from trial court covering presence of other complainants, accused, or proclaimed offenders before allowing quashing.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and Division Bench precedent is affirmed and clarified.