Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makhan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 February, 2026
CRM-M-70537
70537-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
333(1)
CRM
CRM-M-70537-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.02.2026
MAKHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Ms. Rajvinder Kaur, Advocate for
Ms. Amarinder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sukhwinder Bhullar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of DDR/Rapat No.30, dated 06.10.2016
(Annexure P-1),
1), under Sections 324, 506, 34 IPC (Sections 323, 201 IPC
added later on) in FIR No.82, dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P
P-2) registered
under Sections 458, 323, 506 IPC (Sections 325, 201, 34 added and Sections
148,, 149 IPC deleted later on), at Police Station Tappa Mandi,, District
Barnala and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2024
(Annexure P-3)
P passed by learned JMIC, Barnala
Barnala,, and subsequent
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 20:59:26 :::
CRM-M-70537
70537-2025 (O&M) 2
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of comp
compromise dated 05.12.2025
(Annexure P-4).
4).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution
of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He
submits that though the petitioners have already been convicted by the Court
of competent jurisdiction, however, now, the parties have arrived at a
compromise and respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners
any more. Thus, the FIR along with all consequential proceedings alongwith
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2024 passed by the
learned JMIC, Barnala may kindly be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has affirmed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and thus, he has submitted
that the inter se dispute between
n the parties is resolved amicably. Hence, he
has no objection, if the FIR alongwith consequential proceedings including
the judgment of conviction is quashed.
4. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2025 directed the parties to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements,
as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also
directed to send its report.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, partie
partiess have appeared before the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala and got their statements recorded. On
the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted
report dated 13.02.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected
between
tween the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 20:59:27 :::
CRM-M-70537
70537-2025 (O&M) 3
6. I have heard learned counsel for
or the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala.
7. A bare perusal of statutory provision
provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S.
would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary
to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.
B.N.S.S.
S.S.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Ramgopal
‘Ramgopal and another v. State of
Madhya Pradesh‘, 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322 has held as under:
“13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non
non-heinous
heinous
offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or
appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punis
punishment
hment is not
the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly
is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases
where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to
exercise such discretion
discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances
surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been
arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and afte
afterr the incidence. The
touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., 1973 would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard
and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial
justice. A restrictive
restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., 1973 may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts
and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the
other hand, in cases where heinous offences have bee
been
n proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed
by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6
SCC 466 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 20:59:27 :::
CRM-M-70537
70537-2025 (O&M) 4XXX XXX XXX
19. We thus sum-up
sum up and hold that as oppose
opposed
d to Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties
in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., 1973 or vested in this Court under Article 142 off the Constitution,
can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973
Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be
exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing
in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused pers
persons,
ons,
prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations.”
9. Applying the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora
of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have
entered into
nto a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be
merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the
prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section
528 of B.N.S.S.
10. As a result,
result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
DDR/Rapat No.30, dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P
P-1), under
er Sections 324,
506, 34 IPC (Sections 323, 201 IPC added later on) in FIR No.82, dated
06.10.2016 (Annexure P-2)
P registered under Sections 458, 323, 506 IPC
(Sections 325, 201, 34 added and Sections 148, 149 IPC deleted later on), at
Police Station Tappa Mandi, District Barnala and judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P
P-3) passed by learned JMIC,
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 20:59:27 :::
CRM-M-70537
70537-2025 (O&M) 5
Barnala, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 05.12.2025
.2025
(Annexure P-4)
4).
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RUPINDERJIT
DERJIT CHAHAL)
19.02.2026 JUDGE
Gurpreet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 20:59:27 :::
