IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

307 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 RUDRA BHAT ALIAS RUDRA BHATT ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. N.S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Shubhashish Kukreti, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated

23.05.2024, effected between the parties.

DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:-

FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station

155 18.05.2023 323, 325, 308, 341, 506, City Kharar, 148, 149 IPC District SAS Nagar

2. When this petition came up for consideration on 15.01.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-

“In compliance to the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the co-

ordinate bench of this Court, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar has submitted its report dated 24.12.2024. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit of Karan Singh Sandhu, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SubDivision Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar in the Court today. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place with the paper-book.

By referring to paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the reply, learned State counsel submits that there are total seven accused and FIR in regard to accused Nitin Yadav and Puneet Yadav has already been quashed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and present petition has been filed by one of the seven accused namely, Rudra Bhat @ Rudra Bhat. He further submits that there cannot be partial quashing of FIR because that may cause great prejudice or injustice to the remaining accused, who may ultimately be held guilty but at much belated stage.

Learned State counsel also submits that entertaining the partial quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, where the number of accused is more, may unnecessarily give the complainant an opportunity to bargain time and again.

List on 27.03.2025 for consideration.”

3. Subsequently, on 06.05.2025, learned State counsel apprised this Court that there are total 06 accused in the present case, whereas, present petition has been filed by only present petitioner namely Rudra Bhatt. Further informed that proceedings qua co-accused, namely, Puneet Yadav and Nitik Yadav have been quashed vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-62362-2023.

On the request made by counsel for respondent No.2/complainant who is the sole victim, case was adjourned for 08.07.2025, to ascertain whether complainant is ready to settle the matter qua all the accused, including those, who have not filed any compromise quashing petition.

4. On 08.07.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent No.2 made a joint statement that the sole victim/complainant, i.e. Irshad Malik, was willing to record of his statement afresh before the concerned Magistrate to the effect that:-

“(i) The entire dispute, including all claims arising out of the present case, has been amicably and finally settled with all the accused in the case.

(ii) In view of the compromise and the statement being made before this Court, proceedings arising out of FIR No.155 dated 18.05.2023 can be quashed not only qua the present petitioner but also in respect of any other accused who may file a similar petition in future, based upon the same compromise/settlement and there would not be any objection by any of the victim/complainant to that effect.

(iii) He undertakes that no further claim, grievance, or legal action shall be raised/started against any of the accused persons in the matter, now or even in the future.

(iv) Present statement shall suffice for the purpose of quashing of the proceedings, in case, any petition for quashing of the proceeding in the present FIR is instituted by an