290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.21408 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Anuj Mehmi …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rajan Jaswal, 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.50 dated 30.03.2026 under Sections 298 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 295 IPC), registered at Police Station City Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). 2. Learned appearing counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is outcome of a misunderstanding which has, now, been resolved and with the intervention of the respectable of the Society, the matter has SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.29 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M No.21408 of 2026 -2- indeed been compromised between the parties. He has referred to a copy of the compromise in this regard at Annexure P-2. 3. This Court vide its order dated 21.04.2026 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar and got their statements recorded. A copy of report dated 10.07.2026 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.50 dated 30.03.2026 under Sections 298 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 295 IPC), registered at SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.29 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M No.21408 of 2026 -3- Police Station City Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are, hereby, quashed. (H.S.GREWAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.29 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment