CRM-M-44272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (131) JASPREET SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND CORAM: HON'BLE Present: NEERJA K. KALSON 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 26.06.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 238 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police all the subsequent proceedings. basis of compromise 2. perused carefully. 3. 11.08.2026, had directed the partie Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate for recording of their the compromise 44272-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: JASPREET SINGH AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nitish Sharma, DAG, Punjab Mr. Aneesh Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 26.06.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 238 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, (corresponding Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 201, 34 IPC) registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala all the subsequent proceedings. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise/affidavit between the parties (Annexure P Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has perused carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated , had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate for recording of their the compromise. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44272-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 ......PETITIONERS .....RESPONDENTS NEERJA K. KALSON Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate Mr. Nitish Sharma, DAG, Punjab Aneesh Gautam, Advocate The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.157 dated 26.06.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 238 and 3(5) of (corresponding Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 201, 34 IPC) Kapurthala, District Kapurthala along with The quashing of FIR has been sought on the tween the parties (Annexure P-2). Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated s to appear before the learned trial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate for recording of their statements, with regard to Section 528 of the dated 26.06.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 238 and 3(5) of (corresponding Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 201, 34 IPC) along with The quashing of FIR has been sought on the also been This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated s to appear before the learned trial statements, with regard to ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44272-2026 (O&M) -2- 4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala dated 29.08.2026 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 between 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 offences, allegedly committed by the petitioners, are concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 238 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, are compoundable/non- compoundable as per law. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant principles of law, 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 petitioners; iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity; iv) that the action of petitioners 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; ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44272-2026 (O&M) -3- 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 jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C, to allow the compounding of non- compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44272-2026 (O&M) -4- compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 8. In view of the afore-referred principles of law, and the report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent No.2, this Court finds that quashing of FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed. 9. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR No.157 dated 26.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 238 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, (corresponding Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 201, 34 IPC) registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2). (NEERJA K. KALSON) JUDGE 03.09.2026 Atul 1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether reportable Yes/No ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document