IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 13.10.2025 Jaswinder Singh ........Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Naveeen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vishnu Dutt, Advocate for respondent no.2.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

73 18.5.2022 Jodhewal, District 323, 324, 451, 506, 34 IPC and Section Ludhiana 326 IPC (added later on)

The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s).

2. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no.2.

4. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 02.09.2025, the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent no.2) appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 16.09.2025, which is attached with connected petition i.e. CRM-M-17464-2025, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat or coercion and the said Court was satisfied about the genuineness of the compromise entered into between the parties.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State’s counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. The injured and the accused had appeared before the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana and had stated that they had entered into a compromise. The son of the accused was working in the shop of the complainant and later on, he started his own shop, but due to their bitter relationship, son of the petitioner opened his own shop. However, due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner along with his son had committed the offence(s). However, now, better sense has prevailed upon them and have compromised the matter with the complainant. Since the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence.

7. In the present case, the offences under sections 326 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)/359 BNSS. However, in the facts and circumstances p