Neha Narula v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.12.2025 Neha Narula

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present :

Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab.

Mr., Ajeet Pal Singh Pakka, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) CRM-51655-2025 By virtue of the present application, petitioner prays for preponing the main case from 10.04.2026 to some earlier date. Documents on record reveal that quashing petition based on compromise had been filed by petitioner, wherein vide order dated 26.09.2025, parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court to get their respective statements recorded. The case was adjourned for 10.12.2025 awaiting the report of the trial Magistrate. Proceedings recorded in the file further reveal that due to heavy roster, the case could not be taken up for hearing on the date.

Report of the learned JMIC, Bathinda is on record. Statements of petitioner, respondent-complainant, IO have been recorded. Based on the said statements, learned JMIC, Bathinda has sent the report. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Main case is preponed and taken up on Board today itself.

Main Case 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of FIR No.186 dated 30.07.2022 registered under Section 380 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

2.

With the intervention of respectables and elderly people of the society, the parties have arrived at a settlement vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2), which is duly signed by them. The matter was referred to the Court below for recording of statements of the parties and to report with respect to genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned trial Court vide report dated 04.11.2025 has apprised this Court that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure.

3.

Respondent No.2 is represented by his counsel, who admits the factum of compromise.

4.

In view of the aforesaid report of the trial Court and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and "Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another", (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose can be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending, since the complainant has himself compromised the dispute with the petitioners/ accused persons. 5.

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.186 dated 30.07.2022 registered under Section 380 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda District

Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise qua the present petitioner.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 22.12.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No