Allowed

Rahul and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2026CRM-M/56663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act after being satisfied by the trial court report of a genuine compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, holding that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0040 dated 16.03.2025 and all consequential proceedings under BNS and Arms Act are quashed qua the petitioners based on the compromise deed.

Rahul and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

�� ��

�� 

��

��

�� !��"�

��#��"�

$�"��

%��#��&�'��!��"

��(��!��

�� 

))))

#"�� "��!��+��#"��(�%��,�-�!.��-��"��(��"��

¶13

�"��/��&��%��,�-��*0-�#��&�'

¶14

�"��/��!� -�*!.��"�"��(��!��1��

¶15

))))

¶16

��

¶17

�� The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0040 dated 16.03.2025, registered under Sections 109, 351(2), 125, 324(4), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No.1, Tehsil and District Pathankot, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise deed dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure P-3).

¶18

DINESH 2026.01.09 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

��

¶20

This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 13.10.2025, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

¶21

In pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 03.01.2026 has been received from the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot. 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. It is stated in the report that there are only four accused. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender and are not involved in any other FIR.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the

¶23

case file.

¶24

The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of noncompoundable offence and quash the prosecution 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.

¶25

DINESH 2026.01.09 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

�� ��!

¶27

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh

¶28

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:-

¶29

“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.

¶30

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. XXX---XXX ”

¶31

7 . In view of the afore-referred judgments, perusing the report of

¶32

the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner 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.

¶33

8 . Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No0040 dated 16.03.2025, registered under Sections 109, 351(2), 125, 324(4), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of

¶34

DINESH 2026.01.09 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

�� ��"

¶36

Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No.1, Tehsil and District Pathankot, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise deed dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure P-3).

¶37

�� #$��%�&'�� & (� !�� 2��"��(��3��, � 4��1� 2��"�"�(�"��' � � 4��1�

¶38

DINESH 2026.01.09 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rahul and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jiwan Dass and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Chamakdeep Singh Alias Nimma Vs State of Punjab

Bindu Singh Alias Binder Vs State of Punjab