CRM-M/55495/2025 of AMANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER on 10 September 2026

CRM-M-55495-2025 -1- 290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-55495-2025

Date of decision :10.09.2026 AMANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Tehermehakdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL) The prayer in this petition is for quashing of an FIR No.29 dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 331, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 11(3), 351 BNS, at Police Station City Chhajali, District Sangrur along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 05.03.2026 this Court had directed the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P- 2). The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was to submit a report in this aforesaid regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.

CRM-M-55495-2025 -2- Pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sunam and as per the report dated 21.05.2026 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence. In view of the compromise there is a remote possibility of the complainant coming forward to support the prosecution case. The powers under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised in such like situation in order to prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial to be faced by the parties, when there are remote chances of conviction of the accused. The compromise in question is found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in “Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543”. In addition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another, 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482, and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan and Others , 2019(2) RCR (Criminal) 255, have categorized those cases where quashing on the basis of compromise was permitted and those in which, it was not permitted. It was further observed that the Court concerned may look into the medical evidence and examine the same to see as to whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was possible or not.

CRM-M-55495-2025 -3- Thus, mere registration of an FIR under Section 307 did not foreclose the right of the petitioner/accused to effect a compromise and get the FIR quashed. In the present case, there is a simple injury caused to the victim, therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a conviction could be recorded under Section 307 IPC. In view of the aforesaid report of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sunam accompanied by statements of both the parties, the FIR No.29 dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 331, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 11(3), 351 BNS, at Police Station City Chhajali, District Sangrur along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 10.09.2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No