Dismissed¶35

Gurjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2025CRM-M/4442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-4442-2025(O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC, Namit Kumar J (oral), 02.04.2025. Quashing petition under S.528 BNSS 2023 against FIR No.68/21.05.2012 (S.498-A IPC, PS Ajnala) and complaint COMI No.100/2014 (Sukhjinder Kaur v. Gurjit Singh & ors.) founded on compromise dated 26.11.2024; magistrate's report dated 21.02.2025 found compromise genuine and voluntary; State objected that quashing rested on a partial compromise (two accused proclaimed offenders, one dead, two not petitioners), citing Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana 2024(4) Law Herald 1141 (referred). Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action on behalf of all accused.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action at an appropriate stage on behalf of all the accused persons. ¶35

Gurjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action at an appropriate stage on behalf of all the accused persons.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and the complaint can be quashed on the basis of a compromise when only some of the accused are petitioners before the Court, other accused being proclaimed offenders or deceased (i.e., quashing on the basis of a partial compromise).

¶33

Court's answer

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action at an appropriate stage on behalf of all the accused persons.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar, oral), CRM-M-4442-2025(O&M), decided 02.04.2025 - Petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Gurjit Singh & ors. for quashing of FIR No.68 dated 21.05.2012 registered under Sections 498-A of IPC at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural, and complaint COMI No.100/2014 titled 'Sukhjinder Kaur Vs. Gurjit Singh and others', on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2024. On directions issued vide order dated 28.01.2025, statements qua compromise were recorded and report dated 21.02.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala indicated the compromise to be genuine, voluntary and without coercion or undue influence. Learned State counsel, however, submitted that out of nine accused, two (Gursewak s/o Manga and Harpreet s/o Bahadur Singh) were proclaimed offenders, one accused (Gurmukh) had died, and two accused were not petitioners in the present petition; further, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana, 2024(4) Law Herald 1141, a petition seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of partial compromise is not maintainable. Faced with this, counsel for the petitioners withdrew the petition. Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action at an appropriate stage on behalf of all the accused persons.

¶1

CRM-M-4442-2025(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

260

¶5

CRM-M-4442-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.04.2025

Gurjit Singh & ors.

…. . Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab & anr. .. .. Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.68 dated 21.05.2012, registered under Sections 498-A of IPC at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) as well as a complaint bearing COMI No.100/2014 titled as ‘Sukhjinder Kaur Vs. Gurjit Singh and others’ (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Vide order dated 28.01.2025, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise on 17.02.2025.

¶17

In pursuance to the said order, report dated 21.02.2025 has been

¶18

Monika Verma 2025.04.03 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-4442-2025(O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

received from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala, wherein it has been mentioned as under:-

¶22

“(i) There is only 01 person i.e. Gurjit Singh, S / O Hardev Singh, arrayed as accused in the FIR and there are 09 persons i.e. Gurjit Singh, s/o, Hardev Singh, Manjeet Kaur, w/o, Hardev Singh, Hardev Singh, s/o Gurnam Singh, Ramandeep Kaur, c/o Sukhwinder Singh, Mandeep Singh, s/o Hardev Singh, Jasbir Kaur, w/o, Gurjit Singh, Harpreet Singh, s/o, Bahadar Singh, Gurmukh Singh, s/o Kunan Singh and Gursewak Singh, s/o Manga Singh, arrayed as accused in the complaint bearing COMI No. 100/2014 titled as Sukhjinder Kaur vs. Gurjit Singh & Ors.'

¶23

ii) As per the statement of IO, no accused has been declared proclaimed offender.

¶24

(iii) From the statement(s) suffered by the complainant, accused, and IO, it appears that the compromise effected between the parties, is gemuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

¶25

(iv) As per the statement of IO, no accused has been involved in any other FIR.

¶26

(v) As per the statement of IO, there is only one victim/complainant namely Sukhjinder Kaur, d/o, Balwant Singh in the present FIR.”

¶27

Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Mukhtiar

¶28

Singh, submits that out of total 9 accused persons, two persons namely Gursewak s/o Manga & Harpreet s/o Bahadur Singh were declared proclaimed offenders and one accused namely Gurmukh s/o Kannan Singh has died. He submits that two accused are not petitioners in the present petition and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court

¶29

Monika Verma 2025.04.03 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-4442-2025(O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

in Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana: 2024(4), Law Herald, 1141 , the

¶33

petition seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of partial compromise is not maintainable.

¶34

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action at an appropriate stage on behalf of all the accused persons.

¶35

6. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶36

02.04.2025 (NAMIT KUMAR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

Monika Verma 2025.04.03 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh

Gurjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Aman Vs State of Haryana

Bhagwan Das Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarabjit Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Afsana Vs State of Haryana and Others