CRM-M-6540 IN T 290 JATINDER SI STATE OF HA CORAM:- HO Present: Mr Ms for Ms Mr for RUPINDERJIT 1. Th Suraksha Sanhi Sections 406, 4 Police Station proceedings ari respondent No. & P-3). 2. Th to appear befor and the learned of the comprom 6540-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR CR Da ER SINGH @ WARIS HANS AND Versus HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPIN Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate Ms. Palkin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryan Mr. Mukul, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** ERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Secti Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 tation Sector-14, Panchkula (Anne gs arising therefrom on the basis of nt No.2 in support of compromise dat This Court vide order dated 05.02 before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to arned Magistrate was directed to send promise. -1- PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH CRM-M-6540-2026 Date of decision: 17.02.2026 AND ANOTHER ….Petitioners ....Respondents UPINDERJIT CHAHAL vocate with aryana. r Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik No.192, dated 12.08.2025, under ion 24 of Emigration Act, 1983, at (Annexure P-1), and subsequent sis of compromise and affidavit of dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 02.2026 had directed the parties rate to get their statements recorded o send its report qua the genuineness - ners ents agrik nder at uent it of 2 rties rded ness GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-6540 3. Pur Additional Chi recorded. On Magistrate, Pan the compromise any coercion or 4. Lea have not dispute 5. In continue with th 6. Fol of this Court in another 2007 Supreme Court SCC 303, this p Sections 406, 4 Police Station proceedings ari respondent No. & P-3) are quas 7. Pen of, accordingly. 17.02.2026 Gurpreet 6540-2026 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, pa l Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchk On the basis of the statements , Panchkula has submitted report date romise has been effected between the p ion or undue influence. Learned State counsel as well as disputed the factum of compromise bet In view of the above, no useful with the proceedings before the trial C Following the principles laid down ourt in Kulwinder Singh and others 007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 an ourt in Gian Singh Versus State of , this petition is allowed and FIR No 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 tation Sector-14, Panchkula (Anne gs arising therefrom on the basis of nt No.2 in support of compromise dat e quashed. Pending miscellaneous application ingly. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No -2- er, parties have appeared before the anchkula and got their statements ents so recorded, Chief Judicial rt dated 12.02.2026 to the effect that n the parties voluntarily and without ell as counsel for respondent No.2 ise between the parties. useful purpose would be served to trial Court in the instant FIR. d down by the Full Bench judgment hers Versus State of Punjab and 2 and approved by the Hon’ble te of Punjab and others (2012) 10 No.192, dated 12.08.2025, under ion 24 of Emigration Act, 1983, at (Annexure P-1), and subsequent sis of compromise and affidavit of dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 lication(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE es/No - e the ents icial t that thout No.2 d to ment nd ble 10 nder at uent it of 2 osed AL) GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.