Quashed

Lakhwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/11196/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No.108 and all consequential proceedings, including a conviction order, based on a genuine compromise between parties. The bench relied on a report from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate confirming the absence of coercion.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.108 dated 15.06.2021 and judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2024 quashed.

Lakhwinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-11196-2026

¶2

#1#

¶3

304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-11196-2025 Date of decision :10.09.2026

¶5

LAKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

¶8

Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Mahima, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶9

Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.

¶10

Mr. Manpreet Singh Gill, Advocate and Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

¶12

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.108 dated 15.06.2021 (Annexure P-1 ) registered under Sections 452, 355, 323, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Faridkot as well as Judgment of Conviction dated 30.09.2024 passed by CJM, Faridkot and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P- 3) arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Vide order dated 26.02.2026 this Court had directed the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2026 with regard to the compromise dated 11.11.2025 (P-3).

¶15

The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.

¶16

Pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot VISHAL SETHI 2026.09.11 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

#2#

¶18

CRM-M-11196-2026

¶19

and as per the report dated 15.06.2026 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court.

¶20

A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

¶21

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322 ”, has held that in non-compoundable cases of pre-dominantly private nature, even if compromise is reached after conviction, the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the compromise in the present case is found to be fully in consonance of judgments with the direction issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543 ”.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid report of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot accompanied by statements of both the parties, the FIR No.108 dated 15.06.2021 (Annexure P-1 ) registered under Sections 452, 355, 323, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Faridkot along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction dated dated 30.09.2024 passed by CJM, Faridkot are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶23

Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

		( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE
10.09.2	026
vishal
	*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes/No*
	*Whether reportable*	*Yes/No*

¶25

VISHAL SETHI 2026.09.11 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lakhwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases