1. The petitioners are seeking the quashing of FIR No.83 dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307 , 148 , 149 of the IPC, ( Section 452 and 120-B of the IPC added later on) and cross FIR registered on 16.07.2022 vide G.D.No.27 dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307 , 352 , 379-B , 427 , 324 , 148 , 149 , 341 of the IPC and Sections 25 , 27 , 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the grounds that a settlement dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) has been reached between the parties involved. It is contented that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose, and thus, the FIR should be quashed.

2. Notice of motion.

3. At the asking of the Court, Mr.H.S.Deol, Sr.DAG, Punjab accepts notices notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2025 06:00:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013216 CRM-M-64042-2024 -2-

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has, on instructions, brought to the notice of this Court that only eight out of the twelve persons named in the FIR are parties to the present petition. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Das vs. State of Haryana , decided on 12.11.2024, in CRM-M48043-2023, it has been argued that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners are seeking partial quashing of the FIR, which is impermissible.

5. In addition, when the counsel for the petitioners was questioned about the feasibility of quashing of an FIR for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, especially when respondent No.3 had sustained bullet injuries, he pressed into service a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Manpreet Singh alias Manna and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 30th of January 2023 in CRM-M-37146-2022.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material placed on record.

7. No doubt, this Court possesses inherent powers under 482 of the Cr.P.C ./528 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. However, these powers must be exercised with caution and circumspection. The jurisprudence on quashing FIRs based on compromise is well settled:

2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2025 06:00:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013216 CRM-M-64042-2024 -3-

(ii) Conversely, in cases involving grave and heinous offences, such as those under Section 307 of the IPC, quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise is to be generally discouraged.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , (2019) 5 SCC 688 reaffirmed that in cases of non- compoundable offences, the Court can quash the FIR on the basis of compromise if it is convinced that the dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

9. It would be relevant to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narayan (supra):

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [(2014) 6 SCC 466:

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2025 06:00:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013216 CRM-M-64042-2024 -5-

10. It would also be relevant to reproduce the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat , 2022 Live Law (SC) 642:

11. Further, adverting to the facts of the present case, it would also be pertinent to reproduce the allegations levelled in the FIR in question:

12. An examination of the FIR reveals serious allegations against the petitioners, including indiscriminate and reckless firing, resulting in bullet injuries to respondent No.3-Satnam Singh. The gravity of these allegations, particularly under Section 307 IPC, precludes the petitioners from obtaining relief based on a compromise.

13. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision in Manpreet Singh (supra), a perusal of that judgment indicates that the Co-ordinate Bench considered the relevant precedents of 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2025 06:00:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013216 CRM-M-64042-2024 -8- the Honourable Supreme Court including Lakshmi Narayan (supra), wherein it was categorically observed that heinous offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The FIR in Manpreet Singh (supra) was quashed due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, without disputing the settled legal position. Therefore, the reliance on Manpreet Singh (supra), does not advance the case of the petitioners. In addition to the afore-mentioned, since the petitioners are seeking partial quashing of the FIR, it cannot be permitted in view of the settled ratio of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Das (supra).

14. Given the prima facie nature of allegations and the settled law governing the quashing of FIRs in cases involving heinous offences, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.

15. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.