IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 Davinder Kaur and others ….. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vishnu Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.60 dated 01.05.2015 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 IPC (Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120- B IPC) at Police Station Kotakpura, District Faridkot, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 02.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed by this Court to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

4. In compliance thereof, report dated 27.02.2023 from learned Judicial Magistre Ist Class, Faridkot, has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, along with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary, valid, without any coercion or undue influence. It is further mentioned that petitioner No.5-Twinkle Singh has been declared proclaimed person vide order dated 14.09.2017, passed by learned JMIC, Faridkot.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that order dated 14.09.2017, passed by learned JMIC, Faridkot, vide which petitioner has been declared proclaimed person, stands quashed by this Court vide an order of even date passed in CRM-M-23681 of 2023 (Twinkle Singh v. State of Punjab and another).

6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during the proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in cases involving non-compoundable offence.

7. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing cri