IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

223 CRM-M-36538-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision:16.01.2026 Manpreet Kaur …Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Parneet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Tushar Sabherwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0090 dated 19.05.2025 under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 25.06.2025.

2. On 17.11.2025, this Court directed the parties to appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise dated 25.06.2025.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 09.12.2025. Statement of Investigating Officer SI Rajesh Kumar, No.325/Asr, Police Station Maqboolpura, was recorded on 10.12.2025. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has submitted her report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. The relevant part of the report as under has been submitted:

“1. That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, only one person namely Manpreet Kaur has been arraigned in the present FIR.

(ii) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused namely Manpreet Singh in this case, who has got her statement recorded with regard to compromise.

(iii) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is no additional accused in the present FIR.

(iv) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, no accused is absconding or proclaimed offender in the present FIR.

(v) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, no offence was added or deleted during investigation.

(vi) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, no (vi) investigation is pending against the accused and accused has not been declared innocent.

(vii) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant/aggrieved namely Angrej Singh in the present FIR, who has got his statement recording with regard to compromise.

(viii) That there is only one complainant/aggrieved/injured in this case, whose statement has been recorded.

(ix) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, challan has not been presented in this case so far due to non receipt of viscera report from Mohali.

(x) That in view of the statements recorded by both the parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion or undue influence and is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is result of free will of the parties.

(xi) That as per the statement of Investigating Officer, no other criminal case or proceedings is pending against the accused..”

4. Though, learned State counsel has not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise, he submits that the offence under Section 306 IPC was not only non compoundable but also heinous and in view of ‘Daxaben vs. State of Gujrarat & Ors. 2022(3) Crimes 224, the FIR could not be quashed on the basis of compromise with the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction could even quash an FIR under Section 306 IPC, a non compoundable offence to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of court. He relied upon following judgments of this Court, to buttress his arguments:-

a) Iqbal Singh Sandhu and others vs. State of Punjab and Others 2024:PHHC:062644;

b) Satish Kumar Bhargav and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another 2018(2), RCR (Criminal) 103;

c) Puneet Dhillon vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2024 NCPHHC 130448 It is been urged tha