IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :27.03.2026 SAHIL AND ANOTHER ......PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.042 dated 21.01.2026, under Sections 110, 115, 117(2), 126, 3(5), 351(3) of BNS, Police Station Barwala, District Hisar (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise between the parties, dated 27.01.2026 (Annexures P-2).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 09.02.2026, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barwala dated 11.03.2026 has been received. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

5. As far as the offence, allegedly committed by the petitioners, is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under Section 110 of BNS for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, is non- compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant principles of law, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;

ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioners;

iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;

iv) that the action of petitioners do not have a serious impact on the society; and v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means, viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;

xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise 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 jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C, to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of