IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 ROHIT KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS ......Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Amrinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Ms. K.T. Rau, Advocate for Dr. Rau PS Girwar, Advocate for respondent No.2 (through V.C.).

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No. 163 dated 19.12.2024, under Sections 384, 376, 341, 506 and 120-B IPC (lateron added Section 201 IPC) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 07.11.2023. The present FIR arose due to matrimonial/familial disputes between the parties, which have now been amicably resolved. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the compromise reveals that private respondent has admitted that the matter stands amicably resolved and that she has no objection if the instant FIR is quashed. Accordingly, the continuation of the trial in the above- mentioned FIR would serve no useful purpose. Reliance in this regard has been made to the compromise deed (Annexure P-2). In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Kulwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H)

(FB) 2225

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 does not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. She submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and now, respondent No.2/complainant has no grievance against petitioners, therefore, she does not wish for any action to be taken against him.

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the present petition, and submits that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused record with their able assistance.

6. Vide order dated 22.12.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the factum of their marriage.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 07.01.2026 has been received from the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda. 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.

8. There are catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby, parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are well settled. In a celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories of cases wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-

102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;