Pardeep v. State Of Haryana And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.03.2026 PARDEEP .... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Manjit Singh Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Yashpal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in this petition is for quashing of an FIR No.566 dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 and 506 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station City, Ludhiana, Punjab at the State of pendency of appeal against conviction including the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned JMIC, Bahadurgarh against the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Vide order dated 19.01.2026, this Court had directed the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise dated 29.11.2025 (Annexure P-4).

The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order. Pursuant to the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cumJMIC, Bahadurgarh and as per the report dated 18.02.2026 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court.

A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322", has held that in non-compoundable cases of pre-dominantly private nature, even if a compromise is reached after conviction, the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the compromise in the present case is found to be fully in consonance of judgments with the direction issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543".

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties which has been accepted by the counsel for the complainant by invoking this Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the FIR No.566 dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 and 506 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station City, Ludhiana, Punjab at the State of pendency of appeal against conviction including the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned JMIC, Bahadurgarh are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 12.03.2026 Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No