CRM-M-24231-2026 1 [308] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24231-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 YOGITA AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Chahat, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3. H.S. G REWAL , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.273 dated 21.10.2019 under Sections 323, 506, 34, 120-B IPC (corresponding to Sections 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS later on added Sections 454, 380 IPC (corresponding to Sections 331(3) and 305 BNS), registered at Police Station Ateli, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) and affidavit dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-3). 2. This Court vide order dated 04.05.2026, had directed the parties to appear before the concerned 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, parties have appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate, Narnaul has ANJAL GUPTA 2026.07.22 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24231-2026 2 submitted copy of report dated 30.05.2026 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 appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 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.273 dated 21.10.2019 under Sections 323, 506, 34, 120-B IPC (corresponding to Sections 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS later on added Sections 454, 380 IPC (corresponding to Sections 331(3) and 305 BNS), registered at Police Station Ateli, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund, A/c No. 45115269583, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh. (H.S.GREWAL) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Anjal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ANJAL GUPTA 2026.07.22 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document