Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Kumar Kochhar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025 -1-
395
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025
Date of Decision: 11.02.2026
Sushil Kumar Kochhar and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Harnanak Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajender Singh Chauhan, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. G. S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.0147, dated 22.07.2024, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-
B of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District
Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/settlement
dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2
and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of
respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved
their inter se dispute, which is apparent from the settlement/compromise,
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-02-2026 23:58:48 :::
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025 -2-
annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the
petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that
continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse
of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question along with all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest
of justice.
3. This Court vide orders dated 12.01.2026/27.01.2026 directed
the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording
their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Ludhiana has sent the report dated 05.02.2026 to this Court. With
the report, he has annexed the photocopies of statement of
complainant/respondent No.2 & respondent No.3, namely, Gurmeet
Singh and Inderjit Kaur and photocopy of joint statement of accused-
petitioners, namely, Sushil Kumar Kochhar, Rajeev Kumar and Savneet
Singh recorded on 29.01.2026. He has also annexed the photocopy of
statement of ASI Pritpal Singh recorded on 31.01.2026. On the basis of
the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has
concluded in the report that the compromise entered into between the
parties is genuine, voluntary, out of free will and without any coercion
and pressure and the same is not the result of fraud or misrepresentation.
It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Pritpal
Singh, there are only three accused in the present case, i.e. the petitioners
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-02-2026 23:58:49 :::
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025 -3-
and no other accused person is arrayed in the present FIR. It has further
been mentioned that no accused has been declared as proclaimed
offender in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Ludhiana.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S.
would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which
prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh
and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466;
B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4
Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)
RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case
and settled the law.
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-02-2026 23:58:49 :::
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025 -4-
8. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State
of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further
dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for
quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
“61. 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. 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. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint
or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on
society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-02-2026 23:58:49 :::
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025 -5-transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court
must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.”
9. Applying the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the
parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the
proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by
allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case
would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the
legislature enacting under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely
falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and
hence, FIR No.0147, dated 22.07.2024, under Sections 420, 465, 467,
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-02-2026 23:58:49 :::
CRM-M No.70592 of 2025 -6-
468, 471, 120-B of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar
Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
petitioners, on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 06.12.2025
(Annexure P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by
the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded
before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
11.02.2026 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
rittu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 12-02-2026 23:58:49 :::