In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

321 Date of Decision:- 03.09.2025 Susham Lata and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents [State of Haryana and others (mentioned in MOP)]

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present:- Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 23.01.2020, under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.11.2022 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made for staying the further proceedings before the trial Court.

2. At the at outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that State of Haryana is impleaded as party wherein FIR has been registered in Rupnagar, Punjab.

3. On the oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.1 be read as ‘State of Punjab’ instead of ‘State of Haryana’.

4. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the memo of parties of the petition.

5. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 – State.

6. The FIR in question was lodged 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 Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are 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.

7. This Court vide order dated 19.05.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

8. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar, has sent report dated 11.06.2025. With the report, he has annexed the original statements of respondent No.2- complainant Pomi Soni and respondent No.3 - Manish Soni and the petitioners No.1, namely, Susham Lata @ Susam Lata dated 09.06.2025 and statement of ASI Sohan Lal dated 28.05.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. It is mentioned in the report that the present FIR was registered against two accused only namely Susham Lata and Sanjay Bakshi, however, accused Sanjay Bakshi died and proceeding qua him were abated vide order dated 19.11.2022. It has further been mentioned that the petitioners are neither as declared proclaimed offender, nor they are involved in any other case.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be accepted.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar.

12. A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the pro