352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23391-2025 Date of decision: 14.05.2025 HEERA SINGH AND OTHERS ….PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 petitioners seek quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) executed between the parties. Details of the FIR are as follows: FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 259 01.10.2018 406, 381, 506 and 427 of IPC (as supplemented by DDR No.27 dated 03.04.2023 registered under Sections 325, 323, 380, 406, 427, 148, 149 and 201 added later on) City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran 2. With the intervention of respectables and elderly people of the society, the parties have arrived at a settlement vide compromise/affidavit KANIKA 2025.05.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 350 CRM-M-23391-2025 2 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), which is duly signed by them. The matter was referred to the Court below for recording of statements of the parties and to report with respect to genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran vide report dated 09.05.2025 has apprised this Court that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure. A copy of Receipt of costs of Rs. 20,000/- has been placed on record in compliance of the order dated 02.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 admits the factum of compromise having been effected between the parties. 4. In view of the report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another”, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and “Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another”, (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose can be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending, since respondent Nos.2 and 3 have themselves compromised the dispute with the petitioners/accused persons. 5. In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 259 dated 01.10.2018 under Sections 406, 381, 506 and 427 of IPC (as supplemented by DDR No.27 dated 03.04.2023 registered under Sections 325, 323, 380, 406, 427, 148, 149 and 201 added later on) registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all consequential proceedings KANIKA 2025.05.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 350 CRM-M-23391-2025 3 arising therefrom, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise qua the present petitioners. 14.05.2025 (SANJIV BERRY) kanika JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No KANIKA 2025.05.19 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment