Allowed¶22

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2025CRM-M/5090/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-5090-2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, Manjari Nehru Kaul J, decided 16.07.2025. Quashing of FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 (Sections 304, 115(2), 3(5) BNS 2023, PS Lakhewali, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib) and consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2024; trial Court report verified compromise voluntary and complainant consented; relied on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Full Bench in Kulwinder Singh 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052; FIR quashed, parties bound by compromise terms.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 registered at Police Station Lakhewali and all consequential proceedings arising out of it quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 26.11.2024. ¶22

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 registered at Police Station Lakhewali and all consequential proceedings arising out of it quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 26.11.2024.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 under Sections 304, 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Lakhewali, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, could be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 26.11.2024 between the parties.

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the report of the learned trial Court confirming the compromise, and applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and the Full Bench ruling in Kulwinder Singh (2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052), the FIR could properly be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 and all consequential proceedings arising out of it are quashed.

¶22

Key takeaways

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — Compromise between parties. FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 under Sections 304, 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Lakhewali, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2024. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 29.01.2025, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate recorded the parties' statements; its report verified and confirmed that the compromise was effected out of the parties' free will, without pressure or coercion, and the complainant had no objection to the FIR qua the accused-petitioners being quashed. State counsel submitted that the petitioners were the only accused and respondent No.2 the only aggrieved person. Relying on the principles laid down in 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, the petition was allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; the parties were directed to remain bound by the terms of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. (Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.; decided 16.07.2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

322

¶3

CRM-M-5090-2025 Date of decision: July 16^th , 2025

¶4

Harpreet Singh and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶10

Present: None for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Sahil Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. None for respondent No.2.

¶12

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.56 dated 03.11.2024 under Sections 304, 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Lakhewali, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-2).

¶14

Vide order dated 29.01.2025 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 28.02.2025 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.

¶15

Report has since been received from learned trial Court, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. As per the report compromise has indeed been effected

¶16

between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.16 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM-M-5090-2025

¶19

and out of their free will and the complainant has also made statement to the effect that he would have no objection if the FIR qua the accusedpetitioners is quashed.

¶20

The trial Court has annexed the attested copies of the statements of the parties, along with its report.

¶21

Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioners and respondent No.2 is the only aggrieved person in the FIR in question.

¶22

In view of the report of the learned trial Court, 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.

¶23

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

¶24

July 16^th , 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.16 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Rajender Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rakesh Vs State of Punjab

Singara Singh Vs Mewa Singh

Harpreet Singh Alias Jagga Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jaspal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jagmohan Singh Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another