IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 15.10.2025 Sandeep alias Sanjeev & others ........Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rakesh Jangra, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Harnanak Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

461 24.05.2022 Karnal City, District Karnal 506, 452, 427, 380, 379B, 323, 149, 148 IPC The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s).

2. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and the copies of their affidavits are annexed with this petition as Annexures P-2 and P-3.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent nos.2 and 3.

4. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 4.9.2025, the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent nos.2 and 3) appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings.

The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows:

Name of the reporting Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal Court Criminal Case no. CHI-1974-2022 before trial Court ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State’s counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under sections 452, 379B, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), 2023 are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)/359 BNSS. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

7. In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in