258. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sunil Kumar and others State of Punjab and another CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing No.0009, dated Police Station Women, Bathinda, District B other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated parties. 2. may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sunil Kumar and others Versus Punjab and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate, for the petition Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. Sham Lal Saha, Advocate, ------ NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing , dated 13.02.2020, registered under Sections Police Station Women, Bathinda, District B other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure Learned counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18328-2025 Date of decision: 07.08.2025 .... Petitioners .... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. for respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR , registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, at Police Station Women, Bathinda, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of .2025 (Annexure P-2) executed between the Learned counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under of FIR PC, at ) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of ) executed between the Learned counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18328-2025 - 2 - 3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 4. In compliance thereof, report dated 13.05.2025 from learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. 5. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in cases involving non-compoundable offence. 6. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18328-2025 - 3 - distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18328-2025 - 4 - entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482. 8. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18328-2025 - 5 - the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.0009, dated 13.02.2020, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, at Police Station Women, Bathinda, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE August 07, 2025 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document