Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28085 (PNJ)

NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRM-M/24184/2026 · 2026-07-10

Manisha Batra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-24184-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 299 CRM-M-24184-2026 Date of decision: 10th July, 2026 Naresh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No. 1248 dated 30.12.2015 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-4). 2. This Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 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. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24184-2026 -2- 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Judge has submitted report dated 04.07.2026 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. 1248 dated 30.12.2015 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.02.2026(Annexure P-4) are quashed qua the petitioners. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 10th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document