CRM-M-15268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 258 KRISHAN KUMAR BANSAL AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Mr. for respondent Nos.2 to 5. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), Israna, District Panipat (Annexure P therefrom on the basis of 2. This to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. 15268-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: KRISHAN KUMAR BANSAL AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This is second petition filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2)/(3) of BNS) (deleted after investigation), at PS Israna, District Panipat (Annexure P-1) and therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P This Court vide order dated 30.03.2026 appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15268-2026 Date of decision: 18.04.2026 KRISHAN KUMAR BANSAL AND ANOTHER ….Petitioners ....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya for quashing of FIR No.76, dated 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 351(2)/(3) of BNS) (deleted after investigation), at PS 1) and subsequent proceedings arising compromise (Annexure P-2). 30.03.2026 had directed the parties appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness s ....Respondents Bharatiya FIR No.76, dated 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 351(2)/(3) of BNS) (deleted after investigation), at PS subsequent proceedings arising had directed the parties appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-15268 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat the basis of the statements so recorded, Panipat has submitted report dated compromise has been effected between the partie any coercion or undue influence. 4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 5 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. 5. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. 6. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and appro Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2)/(3) of BNS) (deleted after investigation), at PS Israna, Panipat (Annexure P basis of compromise (Annexure P 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 18.04.2026 Gurpreet 15268-2026 2 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties strate First Class, Panipat and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, Judicial Magistrate First Class, has submitted report dated 10.04.2026 compromise has been effected between the partie any coercion or undue influence. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and appro Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 , this petition is allowed and FIR No.76, dated 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2)/(3) of BNS) (deleted after investigation), at PS Israna, Panipat (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the compromise (Annexure P-2) are quashed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No the parties have appeared before and got their statements recorded. On Judicial Magistrate First Class, 10.04.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 to have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 FIR No.76, dated 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2)/(3) of BNS) (deleted after investigation), at PS Israna, District subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the are quashed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No have appeared before and got their statements recorded. On Judicial Magistrate First Class, to the effect that the s voluntarily and without to In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and ved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 FIR No.76, dated 13.03.2021, under Sections 389 IPC (under Section 308(7) of BNS), initially registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC (under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), District subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.