233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No27540 of 2026 Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Raju Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Sunil Kumar Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No.0223 dated 20.11.2025 under Sections 420 IPC {318(4) BNS}, 465 IPC {336 BNS}, 467 IPC {338 BNS}, 468 IPC {336(3) BNS}, 471 IPC {340(2) BNS} amd 120-B IPC {61 BNS} registered at Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR is outcome of a misunderstanding which has, now, been resolved and with the SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.18 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M No27540 of 2026 -2- intervention of the respectable of the Society, the matter has indeed been compromised between the parties. He has referred to a copy of the compromise in this regard at Annexure P-2. 3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.05.2026 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. 4. Pursuant to the afore-said order, the parties have appeared before the learned JMIC, Ludhiana and got their statements recorded. A copy of report dated 05.06.2026 has been submitted to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and out of free will. 5. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. 8. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and FIR No.0223 dated 20.11.2025 under SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.18 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M No27540 of 2026 -3- Sections 420 IPC {318(4) BNS}, 465 IPC {336 BNS}, 467 IPC {338 BNS}, 468 IPC {336(3) BNS}, 471 IPC {340(2) BNS} amd 120-B IPC {61 BNS} registered at Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are, hereby, quashed subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- towards costs with the High Court Legal Service Committee. (H.S.GREWAL) 17.07.2026 JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.18 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment