CRM-M-15733 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 278 PRINCE SHARMA AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravneet Singh Lekhi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of BNS added later on, at PS C (Annexure P-1) and compromise dated 2. This to appear before the Illaqa/Duty and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala 15733-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: PRINCE SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravneet Singh Lekhi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of BNS added later on, at PS C 1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-2). This Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 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. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala and got their statements recorded. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15733-2026 Date of decision: 17.04.2026 ….Petitioners ....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravneet Singh Lekhi, AAG, Punjab. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. This is a petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik for quashing of FIR No.128, dated 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of BNS added later on, at PS City Batala, District Gurdaspur subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 2). 24.03.2026 had directed the parties Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness the parties have appeared before and got their statements recorded. s ....Respondents Bharatiya Nagarik FIR No.128, dated 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section ity Batala, District Gurdaspur subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of had directed the parties Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness have appeared before and got their statements recorded. GURPREET 2026.04.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-15733 On the basis of the statements so recorded, Magistrate, Batala compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 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 proceed 6. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in 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 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of BNS added later on, at PS City Batala, Dist and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 17.04.2026 Gurpreet 15733-2026 2 On the basis of the statements so recorded, Magistrate, Batala has submitted report dated compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without 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 approved by the Hon’ble e Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 , this petition is allowed and FIR No.128, dated 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of BNS added later on, at PS City Batala, Dist subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 17.02.2026 (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 On the basis of the statements so recorded, Sub Divisional Judicial has submitted report dated 09.04.2026 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 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to ings 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 e Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 FIR No.128, dated 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of BNS added later on, at PS City Batala, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise are quashed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Sub Divisional Judicial 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 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 another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon’ble e Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 FIR No.128, dated 18.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 305, 190, 333 BNS and Section 118(1) and 238 of 1) compromise Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.04.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.