IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52777-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 Kanwal Jeet Singh & another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab & others …Respondent (s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Shrome Garg, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

DDR Dated Police Station Sections No.

19 30.3.2025 Fatehgarh Churian, Police 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 191(3), 190 District Batala BNS.

IN FIR Dated Police Station Sections No.

26 10.3.2025 Fatehgarh Churian, Police 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 191(3), 190 District Batala BNS.

The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned DDR, have come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the DDR 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 its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no.2 & 3.

4. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 19.09.2025, the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent nos.2 and 3) appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala 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, Batala Court Criminal Case no. CRM-1013-2025 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. This is a case of version and cross-version. The injured and the petitioner-accused had appeared before the Court of JMIC and had stated that they had entered into a compromise. The alleged incident is the outcome of business rivalry between the parties. However, since the petitioner-accused and the complainant/victim(s) have buried their hatchets and want to live in peace, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence.

7. In the present case, the offences under sections 118(1), 191(3), 190, 118(2) BNS, 2023 are not compoundable under Section 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.

8. In Y. Suresh Babu v State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 347, Hon’ble Supreme Court,