IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 278 CRM-M No.64550 of 2024.docx (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 18 th AUGUST, 2025 Gagandeep Kapoor & another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY * * * * Present : Mr. Piyush Khanna , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Karajveer Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * * AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J. (Oral) 1. By virtue of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS, 2023) petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.0230 dated 21.10.2024 registered against them at the instance of respondent-No.2-Anil Katyal (complainant) at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 452 & 34 IPC on the basis of compromise. 2. Relevant facts, as emerges from documents, be noticed herein below: As per complainant on the intervening night of 18/19.07.2023, both the petitioners entered his residential premises (223, Indra Park, Jalandhar) accompanied by some unidentified persons. Without any exchange of hot words they caught hold him knowing fully well that he is suffering from serious disease. Physical altercation occurred, which was followed by threats issued by both the petitioners. Complainant next alleged that the entire incident was captured in CCTV REEMA SAINI 2025.08.23 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- CRM-M No.64550 of 2024.docx (O&M) cameras and primarily with this backdrop he requested the police authorities to catch hold the assailants, who were named in the FIR as also to initiate appropriate proceedings against them. On the basis of the said complaint a formal case vide FIR No.0230 dated 21.10.2024 was registered and proceedings were set into motion. 3. On culmination of investigation, challan was filed. 4. As is apparent from documents on record, vide order dated 20.12.2024, this Court had directed the petitioners and respondents to appear before the learned Trial Court for getting their statements recorded, as it had been stated in the petition that both the parties have amicably resoled their dispute. 5. It is also an admitted fact that for some reason or the other, the parties could not appear before the learned Trial Court, resultantly, their statements could not be recorded and report could not be submitted to this Court. However, now learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, has sent a detailed report dated 16.04.2025 mentioning therein that statement of IO, both the accused as also the complainant was recorded. It has further been mentioned in the report that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties voluntarily, without any coercive, threat and undue influence etc., It can further be inferred that both the accused i.e. petitioners are not involved in any other FIR, as also there is no other accused except, the present petitioners. 6. In Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, it has been held as under: ‘Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their REEMA SAINI 2025.08.23 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -3- CRM-M No.64550 of 2024.docx (O&M) mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;’ 7. In view of the ratio of law laid down the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts of case as discussed above, this petition is allowed and FIR No.0230 dated 21.10.2024 registered against petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 452 & 34 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed, qua the petitioners. 8. The pending application, if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 18TH August, 2025 ‘raj’ (AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: Yes No REEMA SAINI 2025.08.23 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh