IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 SONU GUPTA AND OTHERS ......Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sahil Nain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, 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. 35 dated 13.03.2023, under Sections 376(2)(n), 452, 420, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Women, District Karnal (Annexure P-1), on the basis of the compromise dated

08.11.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant FIR was instituted against the petitioners’ at the instance of respondent No.2 by leveling utterly vague and baseless allegations. The true factual aspect of the case is that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had solemnized marriage on 07.03.2021. However, due to temperamental differences, the parties could not reconcile their matrimonial relationship, resulting in the registration of the present FIR. It is submitted that with the intervention of respectable persons, the parties have amicably resolved their differences and executed a compromise deed dated 08.11.2025. Respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of their marriage therein, and the parties have mutually agreed to part ways by filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as reflected in the compromise appended as Annexure P-2. 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 petitioners. He submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and now, respondent No.2/complainant has no grievance against petitioner(s), therefore, she does not wish for any action to be taken against them.

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

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

6. Vide order dated 16.01.2026, 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, Karnal. 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 lis