Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 RANJIT SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Manpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Komal Balain, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1.

This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.127 dated 04.10.2022 registered under Sections 353, 186, 332, 427, 506 of IPC at P.S. Julkan, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2.

This Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.

3.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted

-2report dated 04.08.2025 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 4.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. 5.

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. 6.

The present FIR involves offences punishable under Sections 353, 186, 332, 427, 506 of IPC for obstructing the public servant in performance of his duty. In the present case, the parties have settled the dispute; the quashing of the FIR cannot be denied simply because the incident involved obstruction in performance of duty by a public servant. In this regard, this Court finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred in Vinod @ Boda and others v. State of Haryana and another 2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 571. Hence, even the offence under Sections 353, 186, 332, 427, 506 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

7.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, which have been mentioned hereinbefore as the parties have already entered into compromise to settle their dispute so as to live peacefully and none of the accused is a proclaimed offender and there are no other criminal cases against the accused-petitioner, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the FIR on the basis of the compromise. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.127 dated 04.10.2022, registered under Sections 353, 186, 332, 427, 506 of IPC at P.S. Julkan, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner on the basis

-3of compromise arrived at between the parties. 9.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 18.11.2025 JUDGE Mohit Bishnoi Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No