IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 259 CRM-M-44306-2024 Date of decision : 10.07.2025 Amit Bhalla and others ….Petitioners V/S State of Punjab and another ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Jindal, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 20.04.2022 registered under Sections 323, 354, 354- A & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof on the basis of compromise dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties. 2. Vide order dated 09.09.2024, while issuing notice of motion, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded :- “Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is the husband; whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2- complainant. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 with VINOD KOTHIYAL 2025.07.10 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-44306-2024 2 complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.03.2010 and one daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 04.07.2012, who is currently in the care and custody of respondent No. 2-complainant. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is also submitted that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by way of mutual consent has also been filed before the Family Court, concerned, wherein first motion statements of the parties have already been recorded on 23.08.2024 and the next date for recording second motion statement of the parties is 24.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the disputes between the parties stand settled for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to be paid by petitioner No. 1-husband to respondent No. 2-complainant; out of which petitioner No. 1 had already paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-; and the remaining amount of Rs.5,50,000/- shall paid at the time of recording of second motion statements of the parties. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners herein are the only accused in the present case and they have never been declared as proclaimed offender(s).” 3. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that that present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 4. 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. 5. In compliance thereof, report dated 05.10.2024 from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baghapurana has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Moga, 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. VINOD KOTHIYAL 2025.07.10 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-44306-2024 3 6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. 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 case of involving non-compoundable offence. 7. 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 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, VINOD KOTHIYAL 2025.07.10 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-44306-2024 4 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 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.” 8. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482. 9. 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of 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 VINOD KOTHIYAL 2025.07.10 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-44306-2024 5 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. 10. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.66 dated 20.04.2022 registered under Sections 323, 354, 354-A & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only. 10.07.2025 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2025.07.10 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document