Voluntary compromise between parties can justify quashing of FIRs under serious offences like Section 307 IPC and Arms Act, if warranted by facts; Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms prior binding precedent—remains binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/44188/2025 of DHARAM SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011265892025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Inherent powers – quashing of FIR on compromise) |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act can be quashed based on a genuine compromise between the parties under Section 528 BNSS? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that if parties have voluntarily entered into a genuine compromise, continuation of proceedings under FIRs involving serious offences (such as under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act) may not serve any useful purpose, so long as the requirements laid out in established precedents are met. The court followed the Full Bench precedent in ‘Kulwinder Singh’ and its approval by the Supreme Court in ‘Gian Singh’, which allow such inherent power. The genuineness of compromise must be verified, and if found to be voluntary and without coercion, proceedings can be quashed. The court confirmed that all proceedings against the petitioner arising from the FIR stand quashed on compromise. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that when parties settle their differences voluntarily and no societal interest is adversely affected, continuing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process; reliance on binding Full Bench and Supreme Court judgments. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No. 0054 dated 04.03.2021 was registered under Sections 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar. After initiation of proceedings, parties reached a compromise. Pursuant to a court directive, the compromise was verified by recording statements before the Magistrate, who confirmed that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion or undue influence. Both State and complainant admitted the compromise. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that quashing of FIRs under serious offences, including Section 307 IPC and Arms Act, is possible if the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and verified by the Magistrate.
- The court explicitly applies and follows the Full Bench view in ‘Kulwinder Singh’ and its Supreme Court approval in ‘Gian Singh’.
- Practical value: Lawyers can cite this judgment for quashing proceedings where the factual matrix shows a voluntary, uncompelled settlement, even for non-compoundable offences.
- The State’s and complainant’s non-opposition reinforces the weight given to verified settlements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The primary reasoning is grounded in the established view that courts possess inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings where parties have genuinely compromised.
- The court first verified the genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise by directing the parties to record statements before a Magistrate. The Magistrate’s report confirmed no coercion or undue influence.
- Both the State and the complainant did not dispute the compromise, indicating no public policy objection in the instant case.
- Relying on the Full Bench judgment in ‘Kulwinder Singh’ and its approval by the Supreme Court in ‘Gian Singh’, the court reiterated the discretion to quash proceedings even in serious offences when justice demands.
- Further prosecution was deemed purposeless under the circumstances, and quashing was thus granted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Sought quashing of FIR and proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
State
Did not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
Did not dispute the factum of compromise; participated in recording voluntary statements before the Magistrate.
Factual Background
FIR No. 0054 dated 04.03.2021 was registered under Sections 307 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar. The petitioner and the complainant settled their dispute after initiation of the criminal proceedings. Pursuant to the High Court’s direction, the parties appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, where their statements confirming the voluntary nature of the compromise were recorded and accepted as genuine.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which confers inherent powers on the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.
- Interpretation of Section 528 BNSS (similar to Section 482 CrPC) was consistent with the judicial approach in ‘Kulwinder Singh’ and ‘Gian Singh’, allowing quashing on compromise if proceedings would otherwise amount to abuse of process or not serve the ends of justice.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are cited in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court followed the established procedure of ordering verification of the compromise through the parties’ appearance before a Magistrate and submission of a detailed report on its voluntariness.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment explicitly follows the Full Bench decision in ‘Kulwinder Singh’ and Supreme Court approval in ‘Gian Singh’, reaffirming the established law.