IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :21.04.2026 Sandeep Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Karandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Harmanbir Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No. 132 dated 08.09.2021, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’ only, Police Station Khuian Sarwar District Fazilka, (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR is being sought on the basis of compromise between the parties dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-3).

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

3. This Court, vide order dated 11.03.2026, in order to check the genuineness of compromise, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court and get their statements recorded, with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar dated 17.04.2026, 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 by 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 offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of IPC for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, is compoundable with the permission of the Court. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant legal principles, 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 petitioner(s);

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

iv) that the action of petitioner(s) 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 the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to a