CRM-M-13807 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 299 INDERJEET SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Payal, RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 24.12.2025, under Sections 140(2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda (Annexure P subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 25.02.2026 (An 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. 13807-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: INDERJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Versus PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Payal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of 24.12.2025, under Sections 140(2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda (Annexure P subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-2). This Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 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. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13807-2026 Date of decision: 28.04.2026 ….Petitioners ....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. for respondent No.2. This is a petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik for quashing of FIR No.263, dated 24.12.2025, under Sections 140(2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 02.04.2026 had directed the parties 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 s ....Respondents Bharatiya Nagarik FIR No.263, dated 24.12.2025, under Sections 140(2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) 1) and dated had directed the parties 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 GURPREET 2026.04.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-13807 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul On the basis of the statements so recorded, Magistrate, Phul 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 have not disputed the factum of compromise betwe 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 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 140(2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda (Annexure P proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of (Annexure P-2) 7. Pending miscellaneou of, accordingly. 28.04.2026 Gurpreet 13807-2026 2 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, Magistrate, Phul has submitted report dated 22.04.2026 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 betwe 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 Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 , this petition is allowed and FIR No.263, dated 24.12.2025, under (2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda (Annexure P proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 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 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, Sub Divisional Judicial 22.04.2026 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 continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment thers 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.263, dated 24.12.2025, under (2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 25.02.2026 s application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the and got their statements recorded. 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 thers 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.263, dated 24.12.2025, under (2), 303(2), 117(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) BNS, at Police subsequent 25.02.2026 s application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.04.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.