Vikram Singh and Another Vs State of Punab and… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Vikram Singh and Another Vs State of Punab and… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise was rejected and the petition was dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 should be exercised to quash FIR No. 101 dated 08.09.2024 (Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 05.01.2026 entered into between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the non-verification of the compromise qua all the petitioners and the unexplained absence of the petitioners' counsel, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the alleged compromise.

Ratio / Principle

Because accused-petitioner No. 2 Mukhtiar Singh failed to appear before the trial Court for recording his statement, the compromise dated 05.01.2026 was not verified qua all the petitioners and the Court could not satisfy itself as to its genuineness and voluntariness.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under S. 528 BNSS, 2023 (CRM-M-11217-2026) by Vikram Singh and another (Mukhtiar Singh) for quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 08.09.2024, registered under Ss. 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur (Punjab), and all consequential proceedings, on the strength of a compromise dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-4). Pursuant to directions of 19.03.2026, the verification report of SDJM, Moonak dated 21.04.2026 (forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur) showed that although complainant Jatinderpal Singh and petitioner Vikram Singh had their statements recorded in support of the compromise, co-petitioner Mukhtiar Singh failed to appear; the compromise therefore stood unverified qua all the petitioners, and the Court could not satisfy itself as to its genuineness and voluntariness. With counsel for the petitioners also absent and no explanation furnished, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under S. 528 BNSS, 2023 on the basis of the alleged compromise and dismissed the petition. — Virinder Aggarwal, J. (Oral); 10.07.2026.

234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-11217-2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026

VIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

STATE OF PUNAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: None for the petitioners.

Mr. Gurpartap Singh, AAG Punjab.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 08.09.2024, registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur, Punjab, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) entered into between the parties.

Reply by way of affidavit of DSP, Sub Division, Moonak on behalf of respondent/State has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record, copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite.

On the last date of hearing, i.e., 19.03.2026, parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise and to submit report to that effect before this Court.

Report dated 21.04.2026 has since been received from Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in pursuance of the directions of this Court.

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.10 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

-2-

A perusal of the report received from the learned trial Court reveals that although the complainant, Jatinderpal Singh, and accusedpetitioner Vikram Singh appeared before the Court and got their statements recorded in support of the compromise, but, accused-petitioner No.2-Mukhtiar Singh failed to appear for recording of his statement. Consequently, the compromise has not been verified qua all the petitioners, and this Court is unable to satisfy itself regarding its genuineness and voluntariness in respect of all the parties seeking quashing of the FIR.

Furthermore, when the present petition was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. No explanation has been furnished either for the non-appearance of accused-petitioner No.2-Mukhtiar Singh before the learned trial Court for verification of the compromise or for the absence of counsel before this Court.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the alleged compromise.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

10.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.10 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh