Abhishek Gupta and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.58 dated 01.10.2025, under Sections 316(2), 85 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 406, 498-A of IPC, 1860) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Women, Patiala District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-2).

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the

¶14

case file.

¶15

This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 20.04.2026, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

¶16

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.27 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-19864-2026

¶18

-2-

¶19

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 18.05.2026 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

¶20

The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 , had observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:-

¶22

“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.

¶23

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.27 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-19864-2026

¶26

-3-

¶27

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. xxx xxx xxx. ”

¶28

In view of the afore-referred judgments and after perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner(s) and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.

¶29

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.58 dated 01.10.2025, under Sections 316(2), 85 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 406, 498-A of IPC, 1860) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Women, Patiala District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner(s) on the basis of the compromise dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner(s) in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of one month.

¶30

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed

¶31

of.

¶32

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶33

May 27, 2026 Neetika Tuteja

¶34

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶35

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.27 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Abhishek Gupta and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Gupta and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harsh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mohit (Juvenile) Munasar through His Mother Muni and Another Vs State of Punjab

Poonam Bansal Vs State of Haryana

Dr. Tajinder Bhalla Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh Alias Haryy Vs State of Punjab

Deepanshu Alias Deepu Vs State of Punjab and Another