262.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.10.2025 Parvinder Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate, Ms. Jyotnoor Kaur Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vishavjeet Singh Rishi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6.

------

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of FIR No.08, dated 22.01.2025, registered under Sections 127, 356, 74, 75, 61(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharti Versus State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id # 531850; and by this Court in Vivek Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 1972770; Pargat Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, Law Finder Doc Id # 1919077; and Gurjeet alias Deep Versus State of Haryana and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2214198, to contend that criminal proceedings under non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the accused and victim have reached an amicable settlement.

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

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

5. In compliance thereof, report dated 21.07.2025 from learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.

6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during 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 priv