IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 347 SHAHNAWAZ AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Mr. Vivek Sharma, A.A.G., Punjab. Ms. Priya MANISHA BATRA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added l Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P 2 . This Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: SHAHNAWAZ AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Sharma, A.A.G., Punjab. Ms. Priya Sahoo, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added l Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P This Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 had directed the parties to fore the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.17056 of 2025 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 …. Petitioners …. Respondents MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Sharma, A.A.G., Punjab. Sahoo, Advocate for respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-2). This Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 had directed the parties to fore the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the , Phagwara and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has Bharatiya for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 ater on), at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising This Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 had directed the parties to fore the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the , Phagwara and got their statements has Jyoti 2025.05.12 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM submitted report dated 08.05.2025 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coerc influence. 4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 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 t 6. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 this petition is allowed and FIR No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Satnampura, proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) are quashed qua the petitioners. 12.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.17056 of 2025 submitted report dated 08.05.2025 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coerc 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 Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 this petition is allowed and FIR No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 2) are quashed qua the petitioners. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.17056 of 2025 -2- submitted report dated 08.05.2025 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue 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 he trial Court in the instant FIR. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and FIR No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added District Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 2) are quashed qua the petitioners. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No submitted report dated 08.05.2025 to the effect that the compromise has been ion or undue 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 of Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme , this petition is allowed and FIR No.160 dated 22.10.2019 registered under Sections 279, 336, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379 and 201 of IPC added District Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.03.2025 Jyoti 2025.05.12 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document