JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.48, dated 17.08.2023, under Sections 306, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise dated 08.02.2025 (Annexure P-4).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations in the FIR pertain to the suicide of Gagandeep Singh (herein after to be referred as 'the deceased'), who was the husband of petitioner no.1, Paramjit Kaur. It is submitted that the deceased and petitioner no.1 had been residing separately for two weeks prior to the suicide in question. The primary allegation against the petitioner, Paramjit Kaur, is that she had threatened to initiate legal proceedings against the deceased and his family, which, according to the learned counsel for petitioners, does not amount to instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC/106 BNSS, 2023.

3. It is further contended that subsequent to the lodging of the instant FIR, with the intervention of respectables of the society, the petitioners and the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. his father Sukhwinder Singh, mother Sarabjit Kaur and brother Harpreet Singh have amicably resolved their dispute and executed a compromise deed dated 08.02.2025, which is reproduced hereunder:-

'Today in the presence of the respectable persons the compromise has been entered between both the parties in below terms:-

1. That the first party Harpreet Singh has got registered the FIR No. 48 dated 17.08.2023 under Section 306/506/34 IPC, at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor against the second party.

2. That the first party had suspicion that the second party may have had a hand in the suicide of his brother Gagandeep Singh, but the misunderstanding of the first party has been dispelled by respected persons and now the first party is sure that the second party has no hand in the suicide of the first party's brother Gagandeep Singh.

3. That the second party has satisfied the first party in all respects.

4. That the misunderstanding or grudge of the first party had towards the second party has now been removed and now the first party has no grudge against the second party in their mind.

5. That according to the compromise the first party shall be obliged to give statement regarding the compromise in the concerned Hon'ble court in regard to the compromise.

6. That if the Hon'ble Court acquits / gives bails to the second party, then the first party will not have any objection.

7. That as per the said compromise the second party will file quashing petition in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and as per the directions of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh the first party will be bound to give a statement on the basis of compromise in the Hon'ble Court.

8. That both the parties will live peacefully and neither party shall not move against each other.

9. That the compromise has been effected voluntarily by both the parties without any fear, greed or pressure. The compromise has been written, read and signed, so that it will be kept as an evidence.'

4. Relying on this compromise, learned counsel asserts that therefore there remains no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

5. In response to a pointed query by this Court as to how a compromise could be a valid ground for quashing an FIR when the primary victim i.e. the deceased is no longer alive to give consent, learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that the Coordinate Benches of this Court have in similar cases entertained petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the FIRs based on settlement between the accused and legal heirs of the deceased. In support learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the following cases:-