IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:08.09.2025 Pardeep Kaur & another ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab & another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA.

Present: Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankit Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

...

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL).

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR No.90 dated 01.07.2024, registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Samana, District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties as on 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-2).

2. The aforementioned FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 and investigation commenced thereon.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they have resolved their dispute. The compromise was reduced into writing on 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). On the basis of the same, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforementioned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom on the ground that continuation of such proceedings would be a futile exercise.

4. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2025, had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to the genuineness of the compromise stated to have been arrived at between them. The concerned Magistrate was also directed to send his/her report along with the statements of the parties.

5. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana has sent report vide endorsement No.555 dated 16.04.2025 to this Court along with the statements of the parties as well as of the Investigating Officer.

6. On the basis of these statements, the concerned Magistrate has submitted that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free will and without any coercion on undue influence. It is also mentioned in the report that apart from the petitioners, there is no other accused in the FIR and that none of the accused had not been declared a proclaimed person in this case.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has submitted that the compromise has been genuinely arrived at between the parties and also that the respondent has no objection if the petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed.

8. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise by submitting that the offence under Section 306 IPC is a heinous crime and quashing of FIR on the basis of such compromise cannot be allowed. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Daxaben Vs.

State of Gujarat and others, 2022 (3) Crimes 224'.

9. It is well settled that the High Court has power to quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Such power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases relating to offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal pr