Sukhwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
284
CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026
SUKHWINDER KAUR
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) seeking
quashing of FIR No. 205 dated 11.12.2025, registered under Sections 109,
333, 118(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Sections 307, 452, 324 and 323 IPC, 1860), at Police
Station Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated
22.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties, whereby the
dispute forming the subject matter of the impugned FIR has been amicably
and voluntarily resolved.
2.  Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the registration of the
present FIR are that it was lodged on the statement of Manjit Singh, aged
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 2 )
about 47 years, who stated that he is a resident of the aforementioned
address and is engaged in work at Deepak Studio, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.
He further stated that he has three children, namely, his elder daughter
Bandana, aged about 21 years, his son Simarjot Singh, aged about 15
years, and his younger daughter Akansha, aged about 14 years. Since, on
account of the nature of his work, he frequently remains away from home
for about 8–10 days at a stretch, his wife Ramanjit Kaur resides at the
house with their children.
2.1. It was further alleged that, on the morning of the occurrence,
at about 9:00 a.m., the complainant received a telephone call from his
wife, who informed him that their neighbour, namely, Sukhwinder Kaur
wife of Baljit Singh, resident of Patti Udhopur, Beas Pind, Police Station
Adampur, had entered their house and allegedly attacked their daughter
Bandana with a knife, with an intention to cause her death, thereby causing
injuries to her neck and arms. On receiving the aforesaid information, the
complainant reached Fortis Hospital, Jalandhar, where his daughter had
been admitted for treatment. The complainant accordingly made his
statement before the police, requesting that appropriate action be taken
against Sukhwinder Kaur. On the basis of the aforesaid statement and
allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered.
3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Simarjit Kaur
and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRM-M-55342-2024,
decided on 12.11.2024 , wherein this Court, in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, permitted quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 3 )
notwithstanding the fact that Section 307 IPC, along with other offences,
was involved. The Co-ordinate Bench, while considering the nature and
circumstances of the settlement, observed that the parties belonged to the
same village and, being members of a closely-knit rural community, were
likely to continue sharing the same social milieu for generations. It was
further observed that where the parties have voluntarily buried their
differences and arrived at an amicable settlement with a view to restoring
peace, harmony and amity, the continuation of criminal proceedings
merely to serve a deterrent purpose would not necessarily advance the
reformative objectives underlying criminal jurisprudence. The Court, upon
being satisfied that the settlement was genuine and that continuation of the
prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose, accordingly held the case to
be a fit one for accepting the compromise even in respect of an offence
under Section 307 IPC.
3.1. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014
INSC 217 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while delineating the
parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction in cases involving
settlement between the parties, recognised that where the parties arrive at a
genuine settlement soon after the alleged occurrence, the High Court may
adopt a more liberal approach while considering a prayer for quashing of
the criminal proceedings, subject, of course, to the nature and gravity of
the offence and the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
4.  Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
present petition and submitted that the allegations levelled in the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 4 )
impugned FIR cannot be lightly brushed aside merely because the parties
have subsequently entered into a compromise. It is contended that the
petitioner has been attributed a direct, specific and overt role in the alleged
occurrence and that the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission
of offences involving violence and an alleged intention to cause death,
thereby imparting a serious and grave complexion to the prosecution case.
Learned State counsel submits that the mere fact that the parties have
arrived at a settlement subsequent to the occurrence does not, by itself,
obliterate the alleged criminality or confer an automatic right upon the
accused to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.
4.1. It is further contended that the offences invoked in the present
case, including the offence corresponding to Section 307 IPC, are of a
serious and non-compoundable nature and have ramifications extending
beyond the immediate parties to the dispute. The State, therefore, cannot
be regarded as a mere spectator to a private settlement where the
allegations disclose an offence which, by its very nature, affects the
societal interest and the administration of criminal justice. Learned State
counsel has further submitted that the power under Section 528 of the
BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is extraordinary and
discretionary in character and is to be exercised sparingly, with due
circumspection and only where the Court is satisfied that such interference
is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process
of law. A compromise between the parties, it is argued, cannot be
permitted to become a device for routinely neutralising prosecution for
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 5 )
serious offences, particularly where the allegations disclose a direct role
attributable to the accused.
4.2. It is thus urged that, having regard to the nature and gravity of
the offences alleged, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the
larger societal interest implicated in the prosecution of such offences, the
present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of a
subsequent compromise. Learned State counsel accordingly prays that the
present petition be dismissed and the criminal proceedings be permitted to
take their due course in accordance with law.
5. Having given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon a
meticulous examination of the impugned FIR, the medical evidence, the
material placed on record and the surrounding circumstances, this Court is
not persuaded that the present case warrants exercise of the extraordinary
and discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482
Cr.P.C.) for quashing the impugned FIR on the basis of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
6.  The nature and gravity of the allegations assume considerable
significance in determining whether the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The medico-legal report
(MLR) records as many as 13 injuries upon the person of injured Bandana.
Significantly, the injuries include three incised wounds, besides multiple
lacerations, thereby lending prima facie support to the allegation that a
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 6 )
knife was used during the occurrence. More importantly, the assault was
not confined to any innocuous or non-vital part of the body; rather, the
neck, being a vital and particularly vulnerable part of the human body, was
specifically targeted. The injury sustained on the neck has, as per the
medical opinion, been opined to be dangerous to life. These
circumstances, when cumulatively considered, impart substantial gravity
to the allegations and cannot be relegated to the category of a trivial or
purely personal altercation merely because the parties have subsequently
chosen to settle their differences.
6.1. It is a settled principle that the permissibility of quashing on
the basis of compromise cannot be determined by applying an inflexible or
mechanical formula. The Court is required to examine the nature and
gravity of the offence, the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place, the specific role attributed to the accused, the nature of
injuries caused and the broader societal implications of bringing the
prosecution to an end. Each case must, therefore, necessarily turn upon its
own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present case, the allegations
are not merely of a verbal altercation or a simple physical scuffle; rather,
the prosecution case attributes to the accused a direct assault with a knife,
resulting in multiple injuries, including an injury upon the vital part of the
body, namely, the neck of injured Bandana, which was dangerous to life.
The factual matrix, thus, does not persuade this Court to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction merely on the basis of the subsequent settlement.
6.2. It is further of significance that the prosecution has invoked
Section 307 IPC, alleging an attempt upon the life of the injured. Although
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 7 )
the offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable in terms of the
statutory scheme, the mere non-compoundable character of the offence is
not, by itself, determinative of the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
At the same time, the fact that the offence is non-compoundable, coupled
with the nature and severity of the injuries, the weapon allegedly
employed, the part of the body targeted and the specific allegation
concerning the intention to cause death, constitutes a material
circumstance which must necessarily weigh with the Court while
considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of compromise. The
subsequent willingness of the injured/complainant to enter into a
settlement, though relevant, cannot by itself efface the gravity of the
alleged act or render the prosecution devoid of societal significance.
6.3. The inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under
Section 528 BNSS is undoubtedly of wide amplitude; however, its width
cannot be equated with unrestrained discretion. The jurisdiction is
essentially extraordinary, discretionary and equitable in character, to be
exercised with due circumspection and in furtherance of the twin
objectives of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the
process of law. While a genuine compromise may constitute a relevant
consideration in cases predominantly bearing a private or personal
character, the Court must remain circumspect where the allegations
disclose serious physical violence or an offence which has a perceptible
impact upon the societal interest in maintaining public order and
preserving the sanctity of human life.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 8 )
6.4. The power of quashing cannot, therefore, be invoked as a
matter of course merely because the victim or complainant has
subsequently chosen to settle the dispute. The Court is required to strike a
delicate balance between the interest of the individual parties in bringing
the dispute to an end and the larger public interest in ensuring that serious
criminal conduct is subjected to the adjudicatory process in accordance
with law. The compromise, though voluntary and possibly conducive to
restoration of inter se harmony, cannot become the sole determinative
consideration where the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose
conduct of a serious nature.
6.5. In the facts of the present case, the cumulative effect of the
circumstances noticed hereinabove weighs decisively against terminating
the prosecution at its threshold. The allegation of a knife assault, the
attribution of a direct and specific role to the accused, the existence of 13
injuries, including three incised wounds, the targeting of the neck, and the
medical opinion characterising the neck injury as dangerous to life,
collectively constitute circumstances of sufficient gravity to warrant the
prosecution being tested through the regular process of criminal
adjudication. At this stage, this Court cannot lose sight of the distinction
between a dispute which is essentially private in character and one which,
by reason of the nature of the alleged act and the manner of its execution,
carries a demonstrable element of societal concern.
6.6. Permitting the criminal proceedings to be extinguished solely
on the strength of the compromise, in the peculiar facts of the present case,
would risk overlooking the seriousness of the alleged occurrence and
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 9 )
would amount to exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction without
adequate regard to the nature of the accusation and the medical material
available on record. The consideration that the parties have buried their
differences, therefore, cannot, in the circumstances of the present case,
outweigh the other relevant factors which militate against quashing of the
FIR.
6.7. This Court is also mindful of the fact that, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, it is neither required nor permissible
to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to return any final
finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. The observations
made herein are confined to determining the limited question as to whether
the present case constitutes an appropriate one for terminating the criminal
proceedings at the threshold on the basis of compromise. The evidentiary
worth of the material, the credibility of the witnesses and the ultimate
culpability of the accused are matters to be determined by the learned Trial
Court in accordance with law.
7. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, this Court finds that
the present case does not disclose such exceptional circumstances as
would justify exercise of the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the
impugned FIR on the basis of the compromise. On the contrary, the nature
of the accusation, the specific attribution, the weapon allegedly used, the
multiplicity and character of the injuries, the targeting of a vital part of the
body and the medical opinion regarding the life-threatening nature of the
neck injury, collectively constitute sufficient grounds for declining the
discretionary relief sought by the petitioner.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-13149-2026 (O&M)
( 10 )
7.1. Accordingly, this Court finds no compelling circumstance
warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS. The prayer for quashing
the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings on the basis of
compromise is, therefore, declined. The present petition is accordingly
dismissed .
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations contained in this
order are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present petition and
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
prosecution case or the defence of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court
shall proceed with the matter independently and adjudicate the same on
the basis of the evidence that may be brought on record, uninfluenced by
any observation made herein.
9. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the present petition,
all pending miscellaneous, interlocutory and ancillary applications, if any,
arising out of or connected with the present proceedings, stand disposed of
accordingly. In view of the final determination of the principal
proceedings, the substratum of such applications no longer survives and
they have, consequently, been rendered infructuous. No separate or further
order is warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
03.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document