CRM-M-9930 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 254 ABHISHEK & ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 10.05.2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 238 of BNS, at PS City Khanna (Annexure P and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure P 2. This to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate 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, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna 9930-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: ABHISHEK & ANOTHER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sikandh Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of 10.05.2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 238 of BNS, at PS City Khanna (Annexure P-1) and charge order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 22.12.2025 (Annexure P-4). This Court vide order dated 27.03.2026 to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna and got their statements recorded. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9930-2026 Date of decision: 18.04.2026 ….Petitioners ....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Sikandh Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.2. This is a petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik for quashing of FIR No.84, dated 10.05.2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 238 of BNS, at PS City-II, 1) and charge order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise 27.03.2026 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness the parties have appeared before and got their statements recorded. s ....Respondents Bharatiya Nagarik FIR No.84, dated II, 2) compromise had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness have appeared before and got their statements recorded. GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-9930 On the basis of the statements so recorded, Magistrate, Khanna 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 fac 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 i 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 Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 238 of BNS, at PS City 1) and charge order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of (Annexure P-4) 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 18.04.2026 Gurpreet 9930-2026 2 On the basis of the statements so recorded, Magistrate, Khanna has submitted report dated the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 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 Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 , this petition is allowed and FIR No.84, dated 10.05.2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 238 of BNS, at PS City 1) and charge order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 4) are quashed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No On the basis of the statements so recorded, Sub Divisional Judicial as submitted report dated 09.04.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 tum 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 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 FIR No.84, dated 10.05.2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 238 of BNS, at PS City-II, Khanna (Annexure P- 1) and charge order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 22.12.2025 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Sub Divisional Judicial to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without 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 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 FIR No.84, dated 10.05.2025, under - subsequent 22.12.2025 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.