IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

325 Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 HARSHPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Rahul Soi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Umesh Pandey, Advocate for Mr. Prashant Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.35, dated 04.04.2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 109, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) BNS, registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated

23.07.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. This Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the GURPREET

2026.02.25 10:27 I attest to the accuracy g an e d nuineness of the compromise.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Judicial Magistrate, Nabha has submitted report dated 13.02.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.

4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.

5. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the matter of “Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab”2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 as follows:-

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings :

(I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure :

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court i