IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.09.2025 SUKHPREET SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate for respondent no.2.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of FIR no.128 dated 22.08.2024, registered under Sections 171-G, 218, 465, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga, Annexure P-1, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the compromise, dated 21.04.2025, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioners and the complainant to settle their disputes in question.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners and the complainant have settled their disputes by way of compromise dated

21.04.2025, Annexure P-2.

disputes which led to registration of the criminal case, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard, vide order dated 06.08.2025. Pursuant thereto, a report, dated 06.09.2025, has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baghapurana, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. There is no criminal case pending against the petitioners, nor have they been declared proclaimed persons.

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2/complainant admit the factum of compromise, and submit that they have no objection to quashing of the FIR on that basis.

5. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, that criminal cases having overwhelmingly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their disputes among themselves in a bona fide manner by entering into a compromise. On similar lines is another judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) SCC (Criminal) 101, wherein criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 354 and 394 IPC were

chances of conviction.

6. Further, reference can also be made to Full Bench judgment of

this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another,

2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1052, holding that on the parties settling their

disputes by way of a compromise, the High Court in exercise of power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences also, and quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

7. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR as well as the aforesaid report establishes that the present case is of predominantly private nature and falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, as per law laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The offences alleged are not heinous in nature and cannot be termed as crime against the society; nor do they show mental depravity of the petitioners. Since disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved by way of the compromise, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility as chances of ultimate conviction are not there, and it will hamper their peaceful coexistence even after resolution of disputes.

8. Co