CRM-M No. 61144 of 2025 · Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh High Court · 2026
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 380, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner (Through V.C.) , Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Bareen Pratap Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Bareen Pratap Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Ishneet Singh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.2. , Advocate for respondent No.2. Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) **** Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. , quashing of FIR No.58 dated 26.03.2022, under Sections 380 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, under Section I, of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Phase-I, and all subsequent proceedings SAS Nagar (Mohali) District SAS Nagar, and all subsequent proceedings and all subsequent proceedings SAS Nagar (Mohali) District SAS arising therefrom, on the basis of therefrom, on the basis of compromise said to be compromise dated 02.09.2025 said to be arrived at between the parties. arrived at between the parties.
, this Court directed the parties to appear before On 18.04.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before , this Court directed the parties to appear before Magistrate for recording of their statements with learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with Magistrate for recording of their statements with learned trial Court/Illaqa regard to compromise. regard to compromise.
of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned Chief additional Civil Judge (Senior Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-additional Civil Judge (Senior additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, on 18.05.2026 Division), S.A. tement of Investigating .2026. Statement of Investigating ASI Sohan Lal, No.580/SAS Nagar, posted at Police Station IT City, officer- ASI Sohan Lal, No.580/SAS Nagar, posted at Police Station IT City, ASI Sohan Lal, No.580/SAS Nagar, posted at Police Station IT City, ASI Sohan Lal, No.580/SAS Nagar, posted at Police Station IT City, CRM-M-61144 61144-2025 (O&M) 2 Mohali, was was also recorded on 18.05.2026 Chief Judicial .2026. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar cum-additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, has submitted report recording satisfaction that all the parties has submitted his report recording satisfaction that all the parties report recording satisfaction that all the parties The have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion.
The have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. as under has been submitted: relevant part of the report as under has been submitted: relevant part of the report “1. As per the FIR, there are three accused namely Pardeep As per the FIR, there are three accused namely Pardeep Tanwar son of Devi Singh, Narinder Kumar son of Tanwar son of Devi Singh, Narinder Kumar son of Tanwar son of Devi Singh, Narinder Kumar son of Suresh Kumar and Bhupinder Singh son of Kanwar Suresh Kumar and Bhupinder Singh son of Kanwar Suresh Kumar and Bhupinder Singh son of Kanwar Singh and they all have appeared before the Court and Singh and they all have appeared before the Court and Singh and they all have appeared before the Court and suffered statement with regard to compromise effected suffered statement with regard to compromise effected suffered statement with regard to compromise effected claimed with complainant.
They are not absconding/proclaimed with complainant. They are not absconding/pro persons, in the present FIR. persons, in the present FIR. As per the FIR, the name of the complainant is Durgesh 2. As per the FIR, the name of the complainant is Durgesh As per the FIR, the name of the complainant is Durgesh Kumar Sharma son of Lallu Sharma R/o House No.84A, Kumar Sharma son of Lallu Sharma R/o House No.84A, Kumar Sharma son of Lallu Sharma R/o House No.84A, 5, Mohali, now R/o House No.3103/3, Sector 58, Phase-5, Mohali, now R/o House No.3103/3, 5, Mohali, now R/o House No.3103/3, Sector 44D, Chandigarh and has suffered statement with Sector 44D, Chandigarh and has suffered statement with Sector 44D, Chandigarh and has suffered statement with gard to compromise effected with accused persons. regard to compromise effected with accused persons. As per the main file, the trial is at the stage of 3.
As per the main file, the trial is at the stage of As per the main file, the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence. As per the statements of complainant as well as accused 4. As per the statements of complainant as well as accused As per the statements of complainant as well as accused persons, the compromise arrived into by them is genuine, persons, the compromise arrived into by them is genuine, persons, the compromise arrived into by them is genuine, d out of free will of the parties. voluntary and out of free will of the parties.
As per the statements of the parties as well as As per the statements of the parties as well as As per the statements of the parties as well as Investigating Officer, no other FIR/case is pending Investigating Officer, no other FIR/case is pending Investigating Officer, no other FIR/case is pending against the accused persons.” against the accused persons.
and learned counsel for respondent No.2 Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the have not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the CRM-M-61144 61144-2025 (O&M) 3 matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. would be an exercise in futility.
5. Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Judgment of th and Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , the “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others” (2012) 10 SCC 303, the “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others” “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others” petition is allowed. petition is allowed.
Consequently, FIR No.58 dated
26.03.2022, under Sections 380 FIR No.58 dated 26.03.2022, under Sections 380 I, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Phase and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Phase and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are District SAS Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are District SAS Nagar quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated quashed qua the compromise dated 02.09.2025.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE
02.07.2026 Kapil Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 380, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Jul 2026. The bench was SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL.
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.