CRM-M No. 6540 of 2026 · Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Feb 2026
- Bench
- RUPIN, RUPINDERJIT ERJIT CHAHAL
Outcome
Allowed
, this petition is allowed and FIR No
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above, no useful In d to useful purpose would be served to continue with th with the proceedings before the trial C trial Court in the instant FIR.
- Para 66. Following the principles laid down Fol d down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in ourt in Kulwinder Singh and others hers Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 an 2 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme…
Judgment
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPIN UPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate Present: Mr Ms Ms. Palkin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. vocate with Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryan Ms aryana. Mr. Mukul, Advocate Mr for respondent No.2. ***** RUPINDERJIT ERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Secti Th r Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhi Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No No.192, dated 12.08.2025, under Sections 406, 4 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 ion 24 of Emigration Act, 1983, at Police Station tation Sector-14, Panchkula (Anne (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings ari gs arising therefrom on the basis of it of sis of compromise and affidavit of respondent No. nt No.2 in support of compromise dat 2 dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 & P-3).
This Court vide order dated 05.02 Th 02.2026 had directed the parties to appear befor before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to rate to get their statements recorded and the learned arned Magistrate was directed to send o send its report qua the genuineness of the comprom promise. GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-6540 6540-2026
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, pa Pur e the er, parties have appeared before the - -2- Additional Chi l Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchk anchkula and got their statements recorded. On On the basis of the statements ents so recorded, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pan , Panchkula has submitted report date t that rt dated 12.02.2026 to the effect that the compromise romise has been effected between the p n the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or ion or undue influence.
Learned State counsel as well as Lea No.2 ell as counsel for respondent No.2 have not dispute disputed the factum of compromise bet ise between the parties.
In view of the above, no useful In d to useful purpose would be served to continue with th with the proceedings before the trial C trial Court in the instant FIR.
Operative part
Following the principles laid down Fol d down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in ourt in Kulwinder Singh and others hers Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 an 2 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt in Gian Singh Versus State of 10 te of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this p , this petition is allowed and FIR No No.192, dated 12.08.2025, under Sections 406, 4 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 ion 24 of Emigration Act, 1983, at Police Station tation Sector-14, Panchkula (Anne (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings ari gs arising therefrom on the basis of it of sis of compromise and affidavit of respondent No. nt No.2 in support of compromise dat 2 dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 & P-3) are quas e quashed.
Pending miscellaneous application Pen lication(s), if any, stand(s) disposed ingly. of, accordingly.
17.02.2026 Gurpreet GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. AL) (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE es/No i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: , this petition is allowed and FIR No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Emigration Act, 1983.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Feb 2026. The bench was RUPIN, RUPINDERJIT ERJIT CHAHAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.