IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 SATNAM SINGH . . . Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Y.P. Singh, 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. 7 dated 30.04.2016, under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station NRI, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise and affidavit dated 13.03.2025 (Annexures P-6 & P-7 respectively) arrived between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.

3. This Court, vide order dated 23.07.2025, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, reports dated 27.10.2025 &

02.02.2026 have been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana. 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.

5. Thereafter, on 10.12.2025, the following order was passed:-

“The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

for recalling fresh and correct status report from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana in the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that vide order dated 23.7.2025, passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise. Thereafter, since the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were residing in Canada, therefore vide order dated 21.8.2025, they were granted permission to record their statements through video conferencing on 26.8.2025, and their Special Power of Attorney holders were directed to remain present before the learned trial Court on the said date. In compliance to the above order, the statement of the petitioner as well respondent No. 2 were recorded through video conferencing and they were also duly identified by their respective Special Power of Attorney holders. However, in the report dated 28.10.2025 sent by the learned trial Court concerned, the applicantpetitioner has been wrongly mentioned as a proclaimed offender. Moreover, the statement of the investigating officer has also been recorded on 27.8.2025, wherein he stated that the accused has not been declared a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that the present petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender.

Keeping in view the above, the learned trial Court concerned, is directed to send a fresh status report detailing therein whether the present petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender at any stage of the trial.

For awaiting report, adjourned to 03.2.2026 i.e. the date already fixed in the main case.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.”

6. Pursuant to the above-said order dated 10.12.2025, a fresh report from the learned Trial Court was received on 02.02.2026, stating that, as per the statement of ASI Dilbag Singh (Investigating Officer), the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender. This fact has also been re-affirmed by the learned State counsel on instructions.

7. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-comp