Vinay Khurana Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Vinay Khurana Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

-1-

CRM-M-39467-2025 (O&M)

128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CRM-M-39467-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2026

Vinay Khurana ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab a nd Another ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. A.S.Kang, Advocate for the pet i tioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

Th e present petition has been file d by the petitioner Vinay Khu r ana under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, see k ing quashing of FI R No. 89 dated 07.07.2019, regi s tered under Sections 420 and 120B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, D istrict Ludhiana, along with all consequential p r oceedings arising therefrom.

It is the case of the petitioner that d uring the pendency of the crim i nal proceedings, a compromise was effected bet w een the petitioner and respon d ent No.2–complain a nt. It is contended that on the basis of the said compromise, the petitioner was g ranted bail by this Court. It is f urther asserted that pursuant to the compromise, the entire agreed amount has alr e ady been paid to respondent N o .2. However, despite receipt of the full amount, r e spondent No.2 is now not co m ing forward to mak e a statement in support of the c ompromise nor is she coopera t ing for quashing o f the FIR, which, according to t h e petitioner, amounts to misus e of the process of l a w.

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.28 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39467-2025 (O&M) -2-

Pe r contra , learned State counsel h as opposed the present petition a nd submitted that t h e charges in the case are yet to be framed. It is argued that me r ely because a com p romise was taken note of at t he time of grant of bail or w h ile deciding the ba i l application, the same does not ipso facto entitle the petitione r to quashing of the FIR. It is further submitted that no affidavit or statement regar d ing compromise w a s ever made by the complainant before the Investigating Agenc y . In the absence of a ny such legally recognized co m promise during investigation, the police proceede d in accordance with law, result i ng in presentation of the challa n . It is, therefore, co n tended that the present petition is devoid of merit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for th e parties and have carefully g o ne through the rec o rd.

Th e re is no dispute with regard t o the fact that the petitioner w as granted bail w h ile noticing the submission th a t a compromise had been effe c ted between the p arties. However, it is equally undisputed that thereafter the complainant ne v er appeared before the Investigating Agency to give any state m ent in support of th e alleged compromise, nor was a ny affidavit filed by her during the course of inve s tigation. Consequently, the In v estigating Agency completed the investigation o n the basis of the material ava i lable on record and presented the challan, and as o f today, charges are yet to be fr a med. 6. It i s settled law that quashing of a n FIR on the basis of compro m ise requires a clear , voluntary and duly verified co m promise, preferably supporte d by an affidavit an d statements of the parties. A c ompromise merely noticed at the stage of grant o f bail, without any subsequent affirmation during investigatio n or before the Co u rt, cannot by itself form the sole basis for quashing crim i nal

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.28 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39467-2025 (O&M) -3-

proceedings, particularly when the investigatio n has culminated in presentatio n of the challan.

O n ce the challan has been present e d and the matter is at the stag e of framing of cha r ges, the petitioner has an effic a cious remedy available before the Trial Court, wh e re all permissible pleas, includ i ng the plea of compromise, ca n be raised and con s idered in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court does not find it appropri a te to exercise its inherent juris d iction to quash the FIR merel y on the basis of alle g ed compromise. 8. In view of the above discussio n , this Court finds no groun d to interfere in th e present matter. Resultantly, t he present petition is dismis s ed. However, the p e titioner shall be at liberty to r a ise all permissible pleas before the learned trial C o urt at the appropriate stage, w h ich shall be considered strictl y in accordance wit h law, without being influenced b y any observation made herein. 9. Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

January 28, 202 6 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Speaki n g Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.28 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document