IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 13.10.2025 Gagandeep Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Sarabha, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aharjot Grewal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.75 dated 06.04.2020, under Sections 323, 324, 34, 188 IPC (Section 307 IPC added lateron), Police Station Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-2).

2. In response to the order dated 25.09.2025, the supplementary report has been submitted by the respondent/State, wherein it has been mentioned that compromise between the parties is genuine and without any duress. The statement of injured Sahil has also been placed on record wherein the injured Sahil has admitted that he has entered into the compromise with the petitioners. The report along with the statement of Sahil be taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 27.02.2024, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 03.08.2024 has been received from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

5. As far as the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offence punishable under Sections 324, 34, 188 and 307 IPC, for which the petitioner has been prosecuted, are non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant legal principles, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;

ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioner(s);

iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;

iv) that the action of petitioner(s) do not have a serious impact on the society; and v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means, viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;

xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

6