CRM-M-7775-2025 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CRM-M-7775-2025 Date of decision: 07.05.2025 GAGANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. G.S. Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral) 1. Petitioners Gagandeep Singh and Karnail Singh have filed the instant petition for seeking quashing of the FIR No.0056 dated 23.05.2023, under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Fatehgarh Sahib, P.S. Fatehgarh Sahib and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromises dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3). 2. On 13.02.2025, following order was passed:- “Prayer in this petition under Section 528 BNSS (earlier 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.0056 dated 23.05.2023, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 27.07.2023 (Annexures P-2 & P-3). Petitioners have made second attempt for seeking quashing of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.05.08 22:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-7775-2025 - 2- the FIR on account of compromise. Admittedly, the earlier quashing petition filed on the basis of compromise was withdrawn by the petitioners because respondent(s)/ victim(s) had retracted from the compromise at that time. Even today, petitioners are unable to join hands with the respondents, as no one is here to represent them. On request of counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 20.03.2025. 3. On 20.03.2025, following order was passed:- “Due to demise in the family of the petitioners, counsel for the petitioners could not get the required instructions, thus, prays for an adjournment. List on 03.04.2025.” 4. On 03.04.2025, following order was passed:- “On the one hand, counsel for the petitioners pleads that the dispute has been resolved with the complainant, but he is unable to procure the representation on behalf of the said respondents. List again on 07.05.2025.“ 5. Today again though petitioner’s counsel plead that the compromise still exists but, there is no explanation with the counsel that if the compromise is there in actual, then why the respondents can’t appear before this Court for accepting the factum of compromise, relied upon by the petitioners. It is also noticed that instant petition is a second attempt for seeking quashing of the FIR, on account of compromise. It appears that there is no compromise and unnecessarily the provision of law of quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise is misused by the petitioners. 6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of the AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.05.08 22:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-7775-2025 - 3- present petition. 7. Dismissed as withdrawn. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 07.05.2025 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.05.08 22:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment