314 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 27.02.2025 Rawinder Singh @ Saabi Cheema ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gulrej Khan, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the FIR No.331 dated 11.12.2012 registered under Sections, 306, 34 IPC, at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar City and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is the complainant at whose behest the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioner and the co-accused. Crux of the allegations against the petitioner as made by respondent No.2-complainant is that he was trapped by the petitioner for sending him to New Zealand on the payment of Rs.9 lacs. The money was arranged by father of the complainant, namely, Prem Lal by mortgaging his house and paid Rs.5,60,000/- to the petitioner. However, neither the money was returned by the petitioner nor the complainant was sent to New Zealand. Father of the complainant remained under depression as the money given to the petitioner was taken by mortgaging his shop and house. Fed up with the same, his father consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. Hence, it was alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused with common intention have instigated his father to commit suicide. Thus, prayer was made to take action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. After conducting the investigation, the cancellation reports were filed by the Investigating Agency, however, the same were rejected by learned SDJM, Nakodar vide orders dated 30.11.2013 and 21.11.2023 and directed the Investigating Agency for further investigation of the case. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings on the ground that the petitioner and the complainant have resolved their inter-se dispute by way of compromise and hence, the same be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is the son of the deceased who has no grievance against the petitioner as compromise has already been arrived between them. He submits that though offence under Section 306 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, this Court has ample power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing this FIR on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali and others vs. State of UP and another, passed Criminal Appeal No.660 of 2025 on 11.02.2025 and judgment of this Court in Neha Dhiman and others vs. State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id # 2333002 and Ajay Sharma @ Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 641 He has submitted that when the petitioner has entered into a compromise with respondent No.2, proceedings in the FIR are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and thus, in the interest of justice, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has endorsed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that both the sides have entered into compromise.

5. However, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused who are neither party to the compromise nor party in the present petition. He submits that as per law settled, offence under Section 306 IPC falls under the heinous offence and as per law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of