CRM-M-39467- 128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vinay Khurana State of Punjab and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. A.S.Kang, MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinay Khurana under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 89 dated 07.07.2019, registered under Sections 420 and 120 B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising 2. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2–complainant. It is contended that on the basis of the said compromise, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court. It is further asserted that pursuant to the compromise, the entire agreed amount has already been paid to respondent No.2. However, despite receipt of the full amount, respondent No.2 is now not coming forward to make a st for quashing of the FIR, which, according to the petitioner, amounts to misuse of the process of law. -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. A.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinay Khurana Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 89 dated 07.07.2019, registered under Sections 420 and 120 B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent complainant. It is contended that on the basis of the said compromise, the r was granted bail by this Court. It is further asserted that pursuant to the compromise, the entire agreed amount has already been paid to respondent No.2. However, despite receipt of the full amount, respondent No.2 is now not coming forward to make a statement in support of the compromise nor is she cooperating for quashing of the FIR, which, according to the petitioner, amounts to misuse of the process of law. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39467-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinay Khurana Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 89 dated 07.07.2019, registered under Sections 420 and 120 B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, along with all It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent complainant. It is contended that on the basis of the said compromise, the r was granted bail by this Court. It is further asserted that pursuant to the compromise, the entire agreed amount has already been paid to respondent No.2. However, despite receipt of the full amount, respondent No.2 is now not coming atement in support of the compromise nor is she cooperating for quashing of the FIR, which, according to the petitioner, amounts to misuse of The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinay Khurana Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 89 dated 07.07.2019, registered under Sections 420 and 120- B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, along with all It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent complainant. It is contended that on the basis of the said compromise, the r was granted bail by this Court. It is further asserted that pursuant to the compromise, the entire agreed amount has already been paid to respondent No.2. However, despite receipt of the full amount, respondent No.2 is now not coming atement in support of the compromise nor is she cooperating for quashing of the FIR, which, according to the petitioner, amounts to misuse of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.28 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39467- 3. Per contra submitted that the because a compromise was taken note of at the time of grant of bail or while deciding the bail application, the same does not quashing of the FIR. It is compromise was ever made by the complainant before the Investigating Agency. In the absence of any such legally recognized compromise during investigation, the police proceeded in accordance with is, therefore, contended that the present petition is devoid of merit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the granted bail while noticing the submission that a compromise had been effected between the parties. However, it is equally undisputed that thereafter the complainant never appeared before the Investigating Agency to give any s in support of the alleged compromise, nor was any affidavit filed by her during the course of investigation. Consequently, the Investigating Agency completed the investigation on the basis of the material available on record and presented the challan, and as of today, charges are yet to be framed. 6. It is settled law that quashing of an FIR on the basis of compromise requires a clear, voluntary and duly verified compromise, preferably supported by an affidavit and statements of the parties. A compromise merely noticed at the stage of grant of bail, wi before the Court, cannot by itself form the sole basis for quashing criminal -2025 (O&M) Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the charges in the case are yet to be framed. It is argued that merely because a compromise was taken note of at the time of grant of bail or while deciding the bail application, the same does not quashing of the FIR. It is further submitted that no affidavit or statement regarding compromise was ever made by the complainant before the Investigating Agency. In the absence of any such legally recognized compromise during investigation, the police proceeded in accordance with law, resulting in presentation of the challan. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is devoid of merit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. There is no dispute with regard to the granted bail while noticing the submission that a compromise had been effected between the parties. However, it is equally undisputed that thereafter the complainant never appeared before the Investigating Agency to give any s in support of the alleged compromise, nor was any affidavit filed by her during the course of investigation. Consequently, the Investigating Agency completed the investigation on the basis of the material available on record and presented the lan, and as of today, charges are yet to be framed. It is settled law that quashing of an FIR on the basis of compromise requires a clear, voluntary and duly verified compromise, preferably supported by an affidavit and statements of the parties. A compromise merely noticed at the stage of grant of bail, without any subsequent affirmation during investigation or before the Court, cannot by itself form the sole basis for quashing criminal -2- , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and charges in the case are yet to be framed. It is argued that merely because a compromise was taken note of at the time of grant of bail or while deciding the bail application, the same does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to further submitted that no affidavit or statement regarding compromise was ever made by the complainant before the Investigating Agency. In the absence of any such legally recognized compromise during investigation, the law, resulting in presentation of the challan. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is devoid of merit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was granted bail while noticing the submission that a compromise had been effected between the parties. However, it is equally undisputed that thereafter the complainant never appeared before the Investigating Agency to give any statement in support of the alleged compromise, nor was any affidavit filed by her during the course of investigation. Consequently, the Investigating Agency completed the investigation on the basis of the material available on record and presented the lan, and as of today, charges are yet to be framed. It is settled law that quashing of an FIR on the basis of compromise requires a clear, voluntary and duly verified compromise, preferably supported by an affidavit and statements of the parties. A compromise merely noticed at the thout any subsequent affirmation during investigation or before the Court, cannot by itself form the sole basis for quashing criminal , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and charges in the case are yet to be framed. It is argued that merely because a compromise was taken note of at the time of grant of bail or while entitle the petitioner to further submitted that no affidavit or statement regarding compromise was ever made by the complainant before the Investigating Agency. In the absence of any such legally recognized compromise during investigation, the law, resulting in presentation of the challan. It I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone fact that the petitioner was granted bail while noticing the submission that a compromise had been effected between the parties. However, it is equally undisputed that thereafter the tatement in support of the alleged compromise, nor was any affidavit filed by her during the course of investigation. Consequently, the Investigating Agency completed the investigation on the basis of the material available on record and presented the It is settled law that quashing of an FIR on the basis of compromise requires a clear, voluntary and duly verified compromise, preferably supported by an affidavit and statements of the parties. A compromise merely noticed at the thout any subsequent affirmation during investigation or before the Court, cannot by itself form the sole basis for quashing criminal TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.28 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39467- proceedings, particularly when the investigation has culminated in presentation of the challan. 7. Once the challan has b framing of charges, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy available before the Trial Court, where all permissible pleas, including the plea of compromise, can be raised and considered in accordance with la find it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR merely on the basis of alleged 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the present matter. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage, which shall be considered strictly in accordance with law, without being inf 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. January 28, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) proceedings, particularly when the investigation has culminated in presentation of Once the challan has been presented and the matter is at the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy available before the Trial Court, where all permissible pleas, including the plea of compromise, can be raised and considered in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR merely on alleged compromise. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the present matter. Resultantly, the However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the rial Court at the appropriate stage, which shall be considered strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 6 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- proceedings, particularly when the investigation has culminated in presentation of een presented and the matter is at the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy available before the Trial Court, where all permissible pleas, including the plea of compromise, can be w. At this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR merely on In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the rial Court at the appropriate stage, which shall be considered strictly in luenced by any observation made herein. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No proceedings, particularly when the investigation has culminated in presentation of een presented and the matter is at the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy available before the Trial Court, where all permissible pleas, including the plea of compromise, can be w. At this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR merely on In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the rial Court at the appropriate stage, which shall be considered strictly in All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.28 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document