Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 66972 (PNJ)

SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRM-M/31391/2025 · 2025-09-01

Yashvir Singh Rathor

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31391-2025 Date of decision: 01.09.2025 SUBE SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Eeshan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anil Dua, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of F.I.R. No.476 dated 26.12.2016, in criminal case No. CHI/122/2017 for alleged commission of crime under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani (Annexure P-1) and setting aside order of conviction dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. 2. This Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the learned Appellate Court to get their statements recorded and the said Court was directed to send his/her report qua the genuineness of the compromise. Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31391-2025 -2- 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has submitted report dated 01.08.2025 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 learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 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 F.I.R. following the principles laid down by this Court in 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 102 titled as ‘Sube Singh and another versus State of Haryana and another’ and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011, LL 2021 SC 589 titled as ‘Ramawtar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh’ decided on 25.10.2021, this petition is allowed and the FIR and order of conviction dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise qua petitioner are hereby quashed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 01.09.2025 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document