IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.10.2025 Manmohan .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rituraj Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

CRM-30250-2025 The instant application has been filed by the petitioner for modification of order dated 24.07.2025 qua imposition of costs upon him.

Heard.

No ground to modify the order dated 24.07.2025 is made out. Moreso, the petitioner has already deposited the costs of Rs.50,000/- and produced the receipt thereof, and the same is taken on record.

Disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

CRM-M-37513-2019

1. By invoking Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.30 dated 28.10.2015 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 376, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station, Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

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

2A. On 19.12.2024, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant/respondent No.2 herein on 28.01.2014. One girl child was born out of the said wedlock on 30.10.2014, who is in the care and custody of the respondent No.2. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since 29.04.2014. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have settled all their disputes and have filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by way of mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Gurugram. Even the parties have been granted divorce vide judgment and decree dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P- 5). It is also pointed out that as per the settlement between the parties, the total amount of Rs.66 lacs stands paid to the complainant. It is further submitted that initially 3 accused were named in the FIR, however challan has been filed only against the present petitioner. The petitioner has never been declared as proclaimed offender.”

3. 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. 4. In compliance thereof, report dated 23.10.2025 from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram has been received through learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, 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.

5. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. 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 case of involving non-compoundable offence.

6. 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 Hi