Krishna Kumari And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-36857-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
234

CRM-M-36857-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 31.10.2026
Krishna Kumari and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sayyam Garg, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing SC No. 13, dated 30.09.1997
(Annexure P-1), registered as Sessions Case No.13 dated 10.03.2003, filed
under Sections 307, 342, 384 and 120-B IPC and for setting aside of the
judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated
22.07.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bathinda, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of
compromise dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3).
2. Briefly stated, respondent No.2 Bhupinder Singh @ Vicky, who
was then a student aged about 16 years, was called to Police Station Kotwali,
Bathinda on 24.05.1997. At the asking of petitioner No.1 Krishna and her
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-36857-2024 2
friend Santosh @ Toshi, Inspector Ami Chand, the then SHO, and petitioner
No.2 ASI Karnail Singh made him perform about 570 sit-ups under the threat
of beating. He later suffered acute renal failure and had to undergo
haemodialysis at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Vide
judgment dated 22.07.2005, the learned trial Court convicted the two police
officials under Sections 307 and 342 IPC, and ASI Karnail Singh also under
Section 384 IPC. Krishna and Santosh were convicted under Sections
307/120-B and 342/120-B IPC. Co-accused Manoj Kumar had been declared
a proclaimed offender during the trial.
3. The appeals filed against the conviction, i.e. CRA-S-1343-SB-
2005, CRA-S-1461-SB-2005 and CRA-S-1445-SB-2005, are pending before
this Court. Santosh @ Toshi and Ami Chand have died on 02.05.2008 and
23.07.2011, respectively. As per the report dated 05.11.2024 of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, the complainant and both the petitioners
have suffered statements in support of the compromise, which has been found
to be genuine and voluntary. The State has filed a short reply, stating that the
compromise is a matter of record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the parties
have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of respectables, and
no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive. The
occurrence is about 27 years old and the petitioners are now aged 69 and 74
years, respectively. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied
upon the authorities cited as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ramgopal and another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322 . Learned counsel
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-36857-2024 3
for respondent No.2 has affirmed the compromise and has stated that the
complainant has no objection if the petition is allowed.
5. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties.
6. No doubt, this Court can quash proceedings in non-
compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise, but this power is to be
exercised sparingly. In Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while following
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , held that
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not
to be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise. It was further held that
an offence under Section 307 IPC falls in the category of heinous offences,
and once conviction is recorded, a compromise at the appellate stage is no
ground for acquittal. The relevant part reads as under:-
“....Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial Court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept
the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has
already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge
is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of
such a crime. ”
7. The present case is not a dispute of a private nature. A minor
student was tortured inside a police station by the SHO and the ASI of that
very police station. The learned trial Court found, on the basis of the medical
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-36857-2024 4
evidence, that his life was saved only because of timely haemodialysis.
Custodial torture is an offence against society and the rule of law and the
victim alone cannot condone it. Petitioner No.2 committed the offence while
working as an ASI, and the compromise deed itself describes him as ASI of
Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. Petitioner No.1 has been convicted for
conspiring with the police officials, and her case cannot be separated from
theirs. The charge under Section 307 IPC stands proved after a full trial, and
the case is squarely covered by Narinder Singh's case (supra) .
8. The authorities relied upon by the petitioners do not help them.
Ramgopal's case (supra) related to offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506
IPC, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court confined its view to non-heinous
offences or those of a predominantly private nature. In Kulwinder Singh's
case (supra) , the Full Bench of this Court was dealing with disputes arising
out of matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters and commercial
transactions, which is not the situation here.
9. The petitioners have already availed the remedy of appeal, and
the correctness of their conviction is to be examined in those appeals on
merits. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to bypass
the pending appeals. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Nothing
observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the pending appeals.

31.10.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document