PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 307 Kalyan Singh v. State of Haryana CRM-M-11246-2025 & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 279, 337
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Virat Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
This 2nd petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No.414 dated 21.07.2017 under Sections 279/337 of IPC registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 13.06.2024. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on
17.02.2025 with liberty to implead injured Sandeep.
The following order was passed on 01.03.2025:-
XX XX XX XX Notice of motion. At this stage, on the asking of the Court, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11246-2025 2 respondent No.1-State. Copy of the paper book be supplied to him during the course of day. Adjourned to 28.03.2025. In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within two weeks from today or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, to get recorded their statements regarding compromise and after recording their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to send report regarding the genuineness of compromise and also to intimate whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the party on or before the date fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to ensure presence of respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the time of recording the statement. Registry is directed to inform the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the order passed by this Court. A copy of the order be sent to learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate through fax for compliance.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been received from the concerned jurisdictional Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine and arrived at without any pressure or coercion from anyone.
Operative part
In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 and Full MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11246-2025 3 Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No.414 dated
21.07.2017 under Sections 279/337 of IPC registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed, qua the petitioner. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
29.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 279, 337.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 Apr 2025. The bench was HARPREET SINGH BRAR.
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.