IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.05.2025 PARAMJEET AND OTHERS …Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Anand Vardhan Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vijesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

*****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J.(ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed seeking seeking quashing of FIR No.284 dated 25.09.2021, under Sections 323/34/452/506 of IPC (Sections 325/307 of IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Furrukh Nagar, District Gurugram, Haryana on the ground that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out and also on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter vide compromise dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). 2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram has sent the report dated 18.04.2025 to this Court. With the report, he has also annexed the original statement of respondent No.2, namely, Jagbir Singh; joint statement of petitioners, namely, Paramjeet, Hemant @ Hemu, Gurmukh @ Shiv Kumar recorded on 15.04.2025 and statement of ASI Rajesh Deepak recorded on 17.04.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. It has been mentioned therein that petitioners were not declared as proclaimed offenders in this case. Except in the present FIR, the petitioners are involved in other cases.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram.

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para

61 of the judgment reads