IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 AKSHAY VERMA ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Pallavi Bahre, Advocate for Mr. Varun Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

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. 116 dated 12.07.2024, under Sections 376 and 493 of IPC (Section 312 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have solemnized their marriage on 06.11.2025 and are residing together. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed in Kapil Gupta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another, 2022 (4) RCR (Crl.) 497, and in Karan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2021 (1) Law Herald 149 and contends that criminal proceedings under like circumstances can be quashed.

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

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, on instructions from the concerned investigating officer, has admitted the fact asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

6. Vide order dated 20.01.2026, 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 23.01.2026 has been received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Patiala. 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;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and