The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that courts possess broad inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences when parties have genuinely compromised, provided such quashing serves the ends of justice and prevents abuse of process. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in facilitating societal harmony over rigid procedural adherence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners were named in FIR No.91 of 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), under Sections 379-B (theft by clerk), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute arose from an alleged altercation involving property and personal injury.
Procedural History
- 26.04.2023: FIR registered against petitioners following a complaint.
- 08.01.2025: Parties executed a written compromise, mutually resolving all grievances.
- 12.11.2025: High Court directed parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate to verify the authenticity of the compromise.
- 28.01.2026: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, submitted a report confirming the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and free from coercion or undue influence.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the basis of the verified compromise.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits a High Court to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences when the parties have entered into a genuine, voluntary, and court-verified compromise, despite the absence of statutory provision for compounding such offences under Section 320 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, arguing that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not confined to compoundable or matrimonial cases. They emphasized that continued prosecution would serve no public interest and would defeat the purpose of social reconciliation.
For the Respondent
The State contended that offences under Sections 379-B, 148, and 149 IPC are serious, non-compoundable, and involve public interest. It argued that allowing quashing on compromise alone could undermine deterrence and set a dangerous precedent, especially where public order is implicated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, reaffirming that these powers are plenary and not circumscribed by the list of compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC. It cited Kulwinder Singh to hold that the High Court’s authority to quash is not limited by statutory compounding rules but must be guided by the principles of preventing abuse of process and securing justice.
"The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined parameters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
The Court further endorsed the Supreme Court’s position in Gian Singh that compromise in serious cases may warrant quashing if the victim’s consent is voluntary and the public interest is not adversely affected. Here, the Trial Court’s verification confirmed the compromise’s legitimacy, eliminating any suspicion of coercion. The Court noted that the offences, while serious, were not of a nature that inherently threatened societal fabric, and continued litigation would waste judicial resources without realistic prospect of conviction.
The Court emphasized that judicial restraint must accompany the exercise of inherent powers, but where a genuine compromise exists and the state’s interest is not compromised, quashing is not only permissible but desirable.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences upon a verified, voluntary compromise, provided it prevents abuse of process and promotes justice. The FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Override Non-Compoundability
- Practitioners may now file quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC even in serious non-compoundable offences if a genuine compromise is documented and verified by a Magistrate.
- The burden shifts to the petitioner to prove voluntariness and genuineness - preferably through a sworn affidavit and Magistrate’s report.
Magistrate’s Verification Is Critical
- A mere settlement deed is insufficient. Courts now expect independent verification by the Trial Court to confirm absence of coercion.
- Practitioners should seek a formal report from the Judicial Magistrate before filing the petition to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds.
Judicial Discretion Remains Paramount
- Quashing is not automatic. Courts retain discretion to reject compromise if the offence involves public safety, organized crime, or systemic corruption.
- This ruling does not create a right to quash but affirms a judicial tool to prevent injustice where societal harmony is restored.
