SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
CRM-M/28398/2025 · 2025-07-11
Manisha Batra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61371 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61371 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 308 CRM-M-28398-2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 Suresh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA **** Present: Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Neha Randhawa, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** MANISHA BATRA
, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No.44 dated 17.03.2025 registered under Sections 351(3), 3(5), 126 of of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. This Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak and got their statements NISHA 2025.07.15 11.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-28398-2025 -2- recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 03.07.2025 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 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 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.44 dated 17.03.2025 registered under Sections 351(3), 3(5), 126 of of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.04.2025 (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 11.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document