CRM-M No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 224 Harish Kumar State of Punjab and CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUMEET 1. Present petition has been filed under Section Sanhita, 2023 420 and 406 Station Phase therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 2 On ‘Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioner(s) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.0169 dated 19.10.2024, under Section(s) 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 24 of Emigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase I, District S.A.S. arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P Counsel for the petitioner(s) undertakes that original compromise will be placed on record before the trial Court. Notic M No.6792 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Harish Kumar Versus State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Dr. Parminder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab Ms. Yashnoor Kaur Ladhar, Advocate, for respondent no.2 --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section , 2023 for quashing of FIR No.169 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, Phase-1, District SAS Nagar, and all subsequent therefrom on the basis of compromise dated On 6.2.2026, the following order was passed: Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioner(s) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.0169 dated 19.10.2024, under Section(s) 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 24 of Emigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase I, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P Counsel for the petitioner(s) undertakes that original compromise will be placed on record before the trial Court. Notice of motion. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.6792 of 2026 Date of decision : 1.5.2026 Date of uploading : 1.5.2026 ………….Petitioner Versus …….Respondents SUMEET GOEL Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab , Advocate, for respondent no.2 Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya 169 dated 19.10.2024 under Sections IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police , and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 20.9.2025 (Annexure P-2). , the following order was passed: Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioner(s) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.0169 dated 19.10.2024, under Section(s) 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 24 of Emigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase Nagar, Mohali, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioner(s) undertakes that original compromise will be placed 6792 of 2026 1.5.2026 Date of uploading : 1.5.2026 Bharatiya Nyaya under Sections registered at Police proceedings arising Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioner(s) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.0169 dated 19.10.2024, under Section(s) 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 24 of Emigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase- Nagar, Mohali, along with all the subsequent proceedings 2). Counsel for the petitioner(s) undertakes that original compromise will be placed ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State. Ms. Yashnoor Kaur Ladhar, Advocate, enters appearance and files power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. She does not dispute the fact that the matter has Subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/ High Court Lawyers Society, Account No.43373609961, IFSC Code SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise on 09.03.2026 or on any other date convenient to the Court. Thereupon, the concerned Court shall submit a detaile along with copies of the statements to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing: List on 01.05.2026 for awaiting report. Reply by the respondent hearing. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated Judicial Magistrate Nagar (M report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows: 1. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused namely M No.6792 of 2026 Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State. Ms. Yashnoor Kaur Ladhar, Advocate, enters appearance and files power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. She does not dispute the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/- each High Court Lawyers Society, Account No.43373609961, IFSC Code SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, the parties re directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise on 09.03.2026 or on any other date convenient to the Court. Thereupon, the concerned Court shall submit a detailed report, containing the information on the following points, along with copies of the statements to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing: - I. Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR; II. Number of complainant/victim(s); III. Whether all the accused and complainant/victims are party to compromise and signed the same; IV. In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereof; OR his/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of such person; V. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication; VI. Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence; VII. Any other aspect relevant to the present case. List on 01.05.2026 for awaiting report. Reply by the respondent-State, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing.’ Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali) has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows: 1. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused namely -2- Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Ms. Yashnoor Kaur Ladhar, Advocate, enters appearance and files power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. She does not dispute the fact that the omised between the parties. by the petitioner(s) with Nishkam Sewa High Court Lawyers Society, Account No.43373609961, IFSC Code SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, the parties re directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise on 09.03.2026 or on any other date convenient to the Court. Thereupon, the concerned Court shall d report, containing the information on the following points, along with copies of the statements to this Court, on or before the next date of I. Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR; tim(s); III. Whether all the accused and complainant/victims are party to compromise and signed the same; IV. In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail of; OR his/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of such person; V. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been pending adjudication; VI. Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence; VII. Any other aspect relevant to the present case. if any, be filed on or before the next date of Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 13.3.2026 from Chief Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- 1. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused namely Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Ms. Yashnoor Kaur Ladhar, Advocate, enters appearance and files power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. She does not dispute the fact that the by the petitioner(s) with Nishkam Sewa High Court Lawyers Society, Account No.43373609961, IFSC Code SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, the parties re directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise on 09.03.2026 or on any other date convenient to the Court. Thereupon, the concerned Court shall d report, containing the information on the following points, along with copies of the statements to this Court, on or before the next date of I. Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR; III. Whether all the accused and complainant/victims are party to IV. In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail of; OR his/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the V. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been VI. Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and if any, be filed on or before the next date of Chief SAS has been received, which is taken on record. As per the 1. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused namely ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. Harish Kumar son of Prem Nath R/o House No.369, Sector 21, Panchku present FIR. 2. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant namely Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar 3. As per the above statements of complainant a Court and perusal of compromise deed, the complainant Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar accused Ashish Kumar on behalf of Harish Kumar are party to the compromise and they have signed the same. 4. As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused and one complainant in the present FIR and no affected person is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition. 5. As per statement of Investig proclaimed offender/person or no such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication. 6. As per the statements of complainant as well as accused, the compromise arrived into by them i influence. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the compromise dated 20.09.2025 has been executed between the complainant Raj Kumar and brother of accused namely Ashish Kumar on behalf of accused Ha 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the impugned order is quashed. 5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that case the impugned order is quashed as the parties have compromised the matter amicably. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 7. This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issu exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of M No.6792 of 2026 Harish Kumar son of Prem Nath R/o House No.369, Sector 21, Panchku present FIR. 2. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant namely Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar-1, Punjab in the present FIR. 3. As per the above statements of complainant a Court and perusal of compromise deed, the complainant Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar accused Ashish Kumar on behalf of Harish Kumar are party to the compromise d they have signed the same. 4. As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused and one complainant in the present FIR and no affected person is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition. 5. As per statement of Investigating Officer, accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender/person or no such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication. 6. As per the statements of complainant as well as accused, the compromise arrived into by them is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the compromise dated 20.09.2025 has been executed between the complainant Raj Kumar and brother of accused namely Ashish Kumar on behalf of accused Harish Kumar. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the impugned order is quashed. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that se the impugned order is quashed as the parties have compromised the matter amicably. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issu exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding compoundable offences in the cases of -3- Harish Kumar son of Prem Nath R/o House No.369, Sector 21, Panchkula in the 2. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant namely Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, 3. As per the above statements of complainant and accused recorded before the Court and perusal of compromise deed, the complainant Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar-1, Punjab and brother of accused Ashish Kumar on behalf of Harish Kumar are party to the compromise 4. As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused and one complainant in the present FIR and no affected person is left out or not arrayed ating Officer, accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender/person or no such proceedings against him/her have been 6. As per the statements of complainant as well as accused, the compromise s genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the compromise dated 20.09.2025 has been executed between the complainant Raj Kumar and brother of accused namely rish Kumar.’ Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that she has no objection in se the impugned order is quashed as the parties have compromised the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of la in the 2. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant namely Raj Kumar son of Bir Chand R/o House No.B1/681, Ram Nagar, nd accused recorded before the Court and perusal of compromise deed, the complainant Raj Kumar son of Bir 1, Punjab and brother of accused Ashish Kumar on behalf of Harish Kumar are party to the compromise 4. As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused and one complainant in the present FIR and no affected person is left out or not arrayed ating Officer, accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender/person or no such proceedings against him/her have been 6. As per the statements of complainant as well as accused, the compromise s genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the compromise dated 20.09.2025 has been executed between the complainant Raj Kumar and brother of accused namely Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the he has no objection in se the impugned order is quashed as the parties have compromised the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone e of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding Gian Singh vs. State of ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is: 8. this Court jurisdiction vested u/s M No.6792 of 2026 Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered Court and this Court is: (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. (d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. (e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation sheet is filed/ charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non- are private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstan Court is of the considered opinion jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNS, 2023 to quash the FIR as : -4- Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it an be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 82 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because s mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible e is collected after investigation and charge sheet is filed/ charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. -compoundable offences even which nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, opinion that it is a fit case to exercise to quash the FIR as :- Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it an be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not 82 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because s mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible and charge- sheet is filed/ charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. compoundable offences even which nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to ces, exercise ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. 9 Consequently, the petition under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed 1.5.2026 Ashwani M No.6792 of 2026 (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will a cause of substantial justice. (ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised. (iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature. (v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition. Consequently, the petition is allowed. under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase-1, District SA proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -5- (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice. (ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised. (iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition. allowed. FIR No.169 dated 19.10.2024 under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, 1, District SAS Nagar, and all subsequent on the basis of compromise dated 20.9.2025 (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and ccordingly further the (iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be is reported to have entered into 169 dated 19.10.2024 under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, S Nagar, and all subsequent 20.9.2025, (SUMEET GOEL) ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document