IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

304 Date of decision: 14.01.2026 Bhupinder Singh and others ...Petitioner(s)

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Ram Mohinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Rituraj Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for quashing of FIR No.003 dated 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the settlement agreement dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the respondent-complainant Manjit Singh entered into an agreement with Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and dealer Harmit Singh (Petitioners No.1 to 4 respectively) for the Plot No.16 situated in Sant Hazara Singh Nagar, village Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala. However, the petitioners instead gave him possession of Plot No. 24. In the meantime, the complainant filled the foundation, dug a bore in the said plot and ended up spending Rs. 7 lakh in the process. Thereafter, the original owner of Plot No.24 approached the complainant and the latter vacated the plot after being shown the original documents. The present FIR thus came to be registered against the petitioners.

3 However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition.

4 The parties were thus directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2025 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.

5 Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, vide Memo No.390 dated

03.11.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under: -

“As per the statements of the parties and investigating Officer, the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence. The present FIR was lodged against accused Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and Harmit Singh only at the instance of complainant/victim Manjit Singh in this FIR. Except accused Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and Harmit Singh, there is no other person nominated by the police as accused. Accused Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and Harmit Singh and complainant/victim Manjit Singh are party to the compromise and compromise bears their signatures. It is submitted that no PO proceedings are pending against any of accused person nor accused are declared as Proclaimed offender in this case. Accused are not involved in any other FIR. There are above said four total number of accused in the present FIR and Sh. Manjit Singh is only the complainant/victim.”

6. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

7 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed.

8 The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641'. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

“16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the Hig