Allowed¶34

Deepak and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2025CRM-M/29317/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CRM-M-29317-2025; decided 11.12.2025 by Sanjay Vashisth, J.; petition under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIR No. 475 dated 06.12.2024, P.S. Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak (Sections 115(2), 3(5), 351(3a), 287a BNS and Sections 25, 54, 59 Arms Act) and consequential proceedings on basis of compromise dated 17.04.2025; ACJM Rohtak verified genuine, voluntary compromise; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Kulwinder Singh (FB) 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 relied on; petition allowed, FIR quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 475 dated 06.12.2024 registered at Police Station Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it, quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 17.04.2025; parties to remain bound by the terms of the compromise. ¶34

Deepak and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 475 dated 06.12.2024 registered at Police Station Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak (under Sections 115(2), 3(5), 351(3a), 287a of BNS and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 17.04.2025 effected between the parties.

¶18

Court's answer

The report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak verified and confirmed that a compromise was indeed effected between the parties, without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will, and the private respondents stated they would have no objection if the FIR qua the accused-petitioners was quashed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In view of the report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it are quashed.

¶34

Key takeaways

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise – Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 475 dated 06.12.2024, P.S. Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak, under Sections 115(2), 3(5), 351(3a), 287a of BNS and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, and all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) – On direction of the High Court, statements of affected parties recorded before Illaqa Magistrate; report of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak confirmed the factum of compromise, arrived at voluntarily and without pressure or coercion; both accused and both complainants/victims party to the compromise; none left out; no accused a proclaimed offender – Held: relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and the Full Bench ruling in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by terms of compromise and statements recorded before the Court below.

¶1

CRM-M-29317-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

313

¶5

CRM-M-29317-2025

¶6

Decided on :11.12.2025

DEEPAK AND ANOTHER

......Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶11

......Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶13

Present: Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶15

Mr. Sajan, Advocate, for Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶16

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶17

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

¶18

seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2), effected between the

¶19

parties.

¶20

DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:-

¶21

FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station
475	06.12.2024	115(2), 3(5), 351(3a),	Purani Sabzi
		287a of BNS and	Mandi, Rohtak
		sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act

¶22

Vide order dated 26.05.2025, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise.

¶23

LAVISHA 2025.12.11 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-29317-2025

¶25

¶26

Report has since been received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, in pursuance to the directions of this Court wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. As per the report(s) compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the private respondents have also made statement to the effect that they would have no objection if the FIR qua the accused-petitioners is quashed.

¶27

The trial Court has annexed the statements of the parties in original, along with its report. The relevant part of the said report is reproduced herebelow:

¶28

Sr. No.	De	scription
1.	Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR	Two accused
2.	Number of complainant/victim(s)	Two victims/complainant
3.	Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same	Yes
4.	In case, any affected person(accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereas; Or His/her statement is till to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of suchperson	No complainant/accused has been left out in the petition and all have been arrayed as party in the petition.
5.	Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication	No

¶29

LAVISHA 2025.12.11 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-29317-2025

¶31

¶32

6.	Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence	Yes
7.	Any other aspect relevant to thepresent case.	Nothing worth noticing reported

¶33

Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioners and the private respondents are the only aggrieved person in the FIR in question.

¶34

In view of the report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, and the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it, are quashed.

¶35

Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below

¶36

Petition stands disposed of.

¶37

11.12.2025 (SANJAY VASHISTH) Lavisha JUDGE

¶38

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶39

LAVISHA 2025.12.11 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Deepak and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navreet Singh Alias Navneet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kamaljeet Singh Alias Bachchi Vs State of Haryana

Amit Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Raman Kumar and Another Vs M/S P.T. Kirpa Ram Durga Dass and Others

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh @ Jinder Vs State of Punjab