Allowed¶30

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2025CRM-M/5451/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on ground of compromise between parties; petition under S. 528 BNSS 2023; FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020 under Sections 323/324/506 IPC, P.S. City Sohana, Gurugram; genuineness of compromise verified by trial Court report; relied on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Shakuntala Sawhney (1980) 1 SCC 63, Full Bench Kulwinder Singh 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052; Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-5451-2025 (O&M), Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, decided 01.03.2025; FIR and proceedings quashed qua petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020 under Sections 323/324/506 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram, Haryana, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, qua the petitioner. ¶30

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020 under Sections 323/324/506 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram, Haryana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed in view of the compromise dated 22.11.2024 between the parties.

¶15

Court's answer

On the basis of the compromise between the parties (reported genuine and free of pressure or coercion) and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Shakuntala Sawhney (1980) 1 SCC 63, and by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, the petition is allowed and FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020 under Sections 323/324/506 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram, Haryana, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (single judge, oral order) allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020, registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram under Sections 323/324/506 of IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, qua the petitioner, on the basis of a compromise dated 22.11.2024 between the parties. Following the Court's interim order of 30.01.2025 directing recording of statements, the jurisdictional trial Court reported the compromise to be genuine and arrived at without any pressure or coercion. Acting on that report and the law laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya, (1980) 1 SCC 63, and the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner.

¶1

CRM-M-5451-2025 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

228

¶4

CRM-M-5451-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.03.2025

Ram Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Anuj Tanwar, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶14

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶15

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020 under Sections 323/324/506 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram, Haryana, and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 22.11.2024.

¶16

The following order was passed on 30.01.2025:-

¶17

Notice of motion for 01.03.2025.

¶18

At this stage, on the asking of the Court, Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.2 & 3 and files his

¶19

MOHD YAKUB 2025.03.01 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M-5451-2025

¶21

¶22

vakalatnama and admits to the factum of compromise. Copy of the paper book be supplied to them during the course of day.

¶23

Service is complete.

¶24

In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within two weeks from today or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, to get their statements recorded regarding compromise and after recording their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to send report regarding the genuineness of compromise and also to intimate whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the party on or before the date fixed.

¶25

A copy of the order be sent to learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate through fax for compliance.”

¶26

In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been received from the concerned jurisdictional Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine and arrived at without any pressure or coercion from anyone.

¶27

In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 and Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 , this petition is allowed and FIR No.366 dated 19.10.2020 under Sections 323/324/506 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram, Haryana and all other

¶28

MOHD YAKUB 2025.03.01 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶29

CRM-M-5451-2025 3

¶30

subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed, qua the petitioner.

¶31

	(HARP	REET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
01.03.2025 yakub
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶32

MOHD YAKUB 2025.03.01 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar 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

Avnish Malik and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Daljit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Smt Sweta Pathak Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Santokh Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajveer Bhatti Alias Monu Vs State of Punjab

Parveen and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others