Satnam Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
318

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2026
Satnam Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for quashing of
FIR No.10 dated 16.01.2026, registered under Sections 108 and 353(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station Industrial
Focal Point Purhiran, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated
12.05.2026 (Annexure P-2).
2. The aforementioned FIR had been lodged by respondent
No.2/complainant Anita Rani, wife of late Shamsher Singh. As per the FIR,
her husband had been depressed for the past few days and had consumed
sleeping pills in a large quantity at their house on 12.01.2026 at about 7.00
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 2
p.m. He was admitted to a hospital at Hoshiarpur and was referred to DMC,
Ludhiana on 16.01.2026, but died in the ambulance near Phagwara. While
checking his belongings at the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, the complainant
found in the pocket of his jacket a note written in Hindi in his handwriting.
3. In the note the deceased wrote that he was depressed and that an
amount of Rs.15 lakhs was involved in his dealings with Satnam Singh and
his son Karandeep, the owners of Noor Trading Company, Batala. They had
left their vehicle with him, assuring him that they would return the amount
and take the vehicle back. Instead, they refused to pay the money and tried to
implicate him in a false case by saying they would kill him and his son. He
ended the note by writing that he was putting an end to his life and that
Satnam Singh and his family were responsible for his death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a compromise
has been arrived at between the parties and they have resolved their inter se
dispute, which was reduced into writing as compromise dated 12.05.2026,
annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2. In the deed, the parties
have recorded that the FIR in question and FIR No.007 dated 05.01.2026,
registered under Sections 108 and 351(2) BNS at Police Station Civil Line,
Batala, against family members of each other, were lodged on account of
misunderstandings which now stand resolved. They have agreed to live in
peace and not to take any legal action against each other. The deed has been
executed with mutual consent and without any pressure. It does not speak of
payment of any amount to respondent No.2.
5. It is further argued that even if the allegations in the FIR and the
note are taken at their face value, the ingredients of Section 108 BNS are not
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 3
made out. No specific act of instigation, incitement or intentional aiding is
attributed to either of the petitioners. The allegations arise out of a monetary
dispute and the mere existence of a debt or an alleged refusal to return
money, without any proximate and intentional act of instigation, cannot
amount to abetment of suicide. Petitioner No.2 is not even named in the note
and no specific role is assigned to her. The allegations of threats are vague
and do not disclose any particular act immediately preceding the suicide so as
to establish the requisite proximity. On these grounds, the petitioners have
prayed for quashing of the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, as their
continuation would be a futile exercise.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of
compromise. However, learned State counsel has opposed the petition by
arguing that offence under Section 108 of BNSS is heinous in nature and the
compromise in such offence cannot be allowed.
7. This Court, vide order dated 07.10.2026, had directed the parties
and the Investigating Officer to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court
for recording their statements with regard to the compromise. The Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send a report to this Court.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Hoshiarpur has sent report dated 06.11.2026 to this Court along with
the statements of the petitioners as well as respondent No.2/complainant,
recorded on 30.10.2026. The statement of the Investigating Officer, recorded
on 31.10.2026 is also attached with the report. On the basis of these
statements, it is mentioned by learned Magistrate that the compromise
effected between the parties is genuine, out of free will and without any
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 4
pressure or coercion. It is also reported that none of the petitioners has been
declared as proclaimed offender/person.
9. This Court has heard the submissions at considerable length,
besides going through the material placed on record and the report of learned
Magistrate.
10. Section 108 BNS corresponds to Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal v.
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 has held that in order to bring a case
within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and
in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted
the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused
proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not
amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that abetment by a person is when a person instigates
another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had,
by his acts or omission, created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no option except to commit suicide. Similar view has been taken by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kamaljit Kaur alias
Bholi and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 562 . Reference can also be
made to Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC
750 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that abetment involves a
mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 5
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of
the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act
or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.
11. The ratio of law as laid down in the aforementioned judgments,
when applied to the peculiar facts of the present case, would clearly show that
the offence under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) is not made out. The
grievance of the deceased, as recorded in the note, related to money dealings
and a vehicle left with him. The threat attributed to Satnam Singh and his son
is undated and gives no particulars of the occasion or manner. No act of the
petitioners close in time to 12.01.2026, when the deceased consumed the
sleeping pills, has been pointed out. The FIR itself records that he had been
depressed for some days. Petitioner No.2 is not named in the note and is
covered only by the general reference to the family. There is thus nothing to
show a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, or any mens rea on the
part of the petitioners to push the deceased into taking his life. A refusal to
return money or an undated and unparticularised threat does not amount to
such an act. Even on merits, therefore, the FIR and the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. This Court has not gone
into any evidence and has only tested the FIR and the note as they stand.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 6
12. As regards Section 353(3) BNS, it deals with a statement or
report promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups, castes or communities, made in a place of
worship or a religious assembly. Nothing of the kind is alleged. The narration
in the FIR itself refers to Section 351(3) BNS, but whichever provision is
taken, what is attributed to the petitioners is a threat to a private individual,
which is a purely private wrong.
13. It is well settled that the High Court has power to quash the
prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short 'Cr.P.C.') , now Section 528 BNSS, where it feels that the same is
required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. Such power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. In
this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal)
1052 . It is equally settled position of law that the power of the High Court in
quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. The High Court
is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal
proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case.
If the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this
context can be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 7
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC
466 .
14. In the present case, the compromise is not a financial settlement,
as the deed does not speak of payment of any amount to respondent No.2.
She is the widow of the deceased and the sole informant. She is herself a
party to the compromise. The dispute between the two families related to
money dealings and a vehicle and is essentially private in nature. The law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and
others, (2022) 16 SCC 117 against quashing of an FIR under Section 306
IPC merely on the basis of a financial settlement with the informant is,
therefore, not attracted. The petition is being allowed primarily because the
ingredients of the offence are not made out and the compromise only fortifies
the conclusion that the continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose.
15. In view of the proposition as settled in the aforementioned cases,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of proceedings
would be an abuse of process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, which squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled
by judicial precedents. Allowing the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of
the FIR would secure the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the
legislature in enacting Section 482 Cr.P.C. and now Section 528 BNSS.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.10 dated 16.01.2026,
registered under Sections 108 and 353(3) BNS at Police Station Industrial
Focal Point Purhiran, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the
petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42046-2026 (O&M) 8
16. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and the statements as recorded before
learned Magistrate.

12.11.2026 (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
2026.11.13 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document