AMARJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
CRM-M/18057/2025 · 2025-07-11
Manisha Batra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40957 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40957 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 298 CRM-M-18057-2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 Amarjeet Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA **** Present: Mr. Aazam Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** MANISHA BATRA
, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No.265 dated 19.06.2024 registered under Sections 323, 452, 34, 506 of IPC (Section 326 added later on), at Police Station Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 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 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak and got their statements NISHA 2025.07.15 11.28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-18057-2025 -2- recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 03.06.2025 to the effect that the 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 Nos.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 proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. 6. 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 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and FIR No.265 dated 19.06.2024 registered under Sections 323, 452, 34, 506 of IPC (Section 326 added later on), at Police Station Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) are quashed qua the petitioners.
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE July 11, 2025 Nisha-1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No NISHA 2025.07.15 11.28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document