Case Is Predominantly Private In Nature: Punjab & Haryana HC Acquits AAP MLA Manjinder Singh Lalpura In 2013 Molestation Case Following Compromise
The Court quashed the conviction and 2013 FIR, observing that the dispute was predominantly private and that a settlement would ensure the parties' peaceful co-existence.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted an AAP MLA, Manjinder Singh Lalpura and seven other individuals in a 2013 case involving allegations of molestation and assault, after the petitioners and the complainant reached an amicable settlement.
The Court set aside the judgment of the trial court, convicting and sentencing the MLA and seven others to four years of imprisonment last September.
The Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed, “A perusal of the allegations in the FIR as well as the aforesaid report establishes that the present case is of predominantly private nature and falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as per law laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The offences alleged are not heinous in nature and cannot be termed as crime against the society; nor do they show mental depravity of the petitioners. Besides, the incident is about thirteen years old and nothing untoward has happened between the parties thereafter. Since disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved by way of the compromise, decision on the pending appeals against conviction on merits will hamper their peaceful co-existence even after resolution of disputes.”
Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Ferry Sofat appeared for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, on September 10, 2025, with subsequent orders of sentence passed on September 12 and 22, 2025. The case originated from FIR No. 69, dated March 4, 2013, which was registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran. The charges included various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 323, 354, 506, 149, and 148, along with Sections 3(1)(x), 3(I), and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Following the conviction, several appeals were filed and remained pending before the High Court. During these proceedings, on February 4, 2026, the petitioners and the complainant entered into a compromise to settle their long-standing disputes.
Contention of Parties
Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the parties settled all their disputes through a voluntary compromise. It was argued that since the matter was resolved amicably, the judgment of conviction and the FIR should be quashed.
The State and the complainant/respondent no. 2 admitted to the factum of the compromise. They further submitted that they had no objection to the quashing of the conviction, the sentence, and the FIR on the basis of this settlement.
Observations of the Court
The High Court observed that the parties were directed to record their statements before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who subsequently reported that the compromise was entered into without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. The Court noted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and that the incident, which occurred thirteen years ago, was predominantly private in nature rather than a heinous crime against society.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court held that it possessed inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) to set aside a conviction in non-compoundable cases to secure the ends of justice if a bona fide settlement was reached.
The Court held, “As the parties entered into a compromise to resolve their disputes which led to registration of the criminal case, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard, vide order dated 27.02.2026. Pursuant thereto, a report, dated 25.03.2026, has been received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. There is no criminal case pending against the petitioners, nor have they been declared proclaimed person(s).”
The Court remarked that deciding the pending appeals on the merits would only hamper the peaceful co-existence of the parties.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the conviction and the FIR, and acquitted the Petitioners of all charges.
Cause Title: Gagandeep Singh alias Gaganpreet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:049349]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Advocate Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate Jashandeep Bains, Advocate Sakshi Goel.
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Ferry Sofat, Advocate G. S. Sidhu, Advocate Kamal Gupta.