KARAMPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Ms. Manpreet, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)

#1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 49 dated 12.02.2026 under Sections 318(4), 316(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Civil Lines Batala, District Batala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise 03.03.2026.

#2. On 27.03.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise.

#3. In compliance of the order dated 27.03.2026, parties appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala on 17.04.2026. Statement of the Investigating Officer, ASI Rajbir Singh, Belt No. 573/KPT, Police Station Civil Lines, Batala was recorded on 18.04.2026. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala has submitted his report recording satisfaction that all the parties CRM-M-16548-2026 (O&M) -2- have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under: “1)Number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/proclaimed person in the case? On this count, it was submitted by the investigating officer that in the present FIR there is only 01 named accused, he being: a) Karampal Singh son of Gurmeet Singh According to the statement suffered by the IO, there is only one person involved in the occurrence and he is party to the present petition and was present before the undersigned for recording of his statement. According to the statement of the investigating officer, said accused has not been declared as proclaimed person/offender nor is absconding in the present case. 2) The name of the complainant and injured/ aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of compromise. Statement of the Investigating Officer was also recorded on this score and he stated that there is only one complainant namely Satinder Kaur in the present FIR. Complainant appeared before the undersigned for recording her statement and supported the compromise. 3) Stage of trial/proceedings? As per record, challan is yet to be presented in the present case. CRM-M-16548-2026 (O&M) -3- 4) If the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties? On 17.04.2026, petitioner/ accused and complainant/respondent appeared in the Court along with their respective Advocates and stated in unison that they had entered into a compromise without any extraneous influence, coercion and on their own volition. The complainant/respondent stated in specific terms that he had no objection if the quashing proceedings filed by the petitioner/accused is accepted. Both the parties were identified by their respective Advocates. The respondent/complainant and petitioner/accused were asked to show their identity cards and photocopies of the same were taken on record (Photocopies of identity cards and statements attached herewith). Therefore, from the statements of the parties, it appears that compromise entered into between the parties is genuine, voluntary and out of free will and without any coercion or undue influence and is not result of any fraud or misrepresentation. 5) Whether any other criminal case is pending against the accused? According to the statement of the investigating officer, accused is not involved in any other criminal case/FIR.”

#4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. CRM-M-16548-2026 (O&M) -4-

#5. Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others” (2012) 10 SCC 303, the petition is allowed.

#6. FIR No. 49 dated 12.02.2026 under Sections 318(4), 316(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Civil Lines Batala, District Batala with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioner.

#7. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. July 08, 2026 Ajay Goswami (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No