Raj Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2026CRM-M/13009/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-13009-2026 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Rupinderjit Chahal, decision 15.05.2026 — quashing of FIR No.408 dated 30.09.2017 (Sections 147/148/323/506 IPC; BNS 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2)(3); Sections 325/326 IPC added; Section 25 Arms Act deleted), PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, on basis of compromise dated 25.02.2026; Section 528 BNSS; follows Kulwinder Singh (FB) 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; JMFC Pataudi report on genuineness of compromise.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. FIR No.408 dated 30.09.2017 registered at PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), quashed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ¶¶19

Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.408 dated 30.09.2017 registered at PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 25.02.2026 between the parties.

¶¶15

Court's answer

Since the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pataudi, Gurugram reported (11.05.2026) that the compromise was effected voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence, and neither State counsel nor counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 disputed the factum of compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh (2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052) and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh ((2012) 10 SCC 303), the petition is allowed and FIR No.408 dated 30.09.2017, with the sections noted therein, registered at PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1), and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), are quashed.

¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise — Petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash FIR No.408 dated 30.09.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 506 IPC (corresponding BNS sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2)(3); Sections 325/326 IPC later added; Section 25 Arms Act later deleted) registered at PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, and subsequent proceedings — Compromise dated 25.02.2026 — Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pataudi, Gurugram reported (11.05.2026) that compromise was effected voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence — State counsel and counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 did not dispute the compromise — Following Kulwinder Singh (FB, P&H) 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh (SC) (2012) 10 SCC 303, no useful purpose in continuing trial; FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

¶1

CRM-M-13009-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

251

¶4

CRM-M-13009-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.05.2026

¶5

RAJ KUMAR AND ORS

¶6

….Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

¶11

Present: M r. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for t he petitioners.

¶12

M r. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Hary a na. M r. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate f o r respondent Nos.2 to 7.

¶13

¶14

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

T his is a petition filed under S ection 528 Bharatiya Nagari k Suraksha Sa n hita (BNSS), 2023, for qu a shing of FIR No.408, date d 30.09.2017, u n der Sections 147, 148, 323 a n d 506 of IPC (Sections 191(2) , 191(3), 115(2 ) , 351(2)(3) of BNS) and Sectio n 25 of Arms Act (Sections 32 5 (117(2) BNS) and 326 (118(2) BNS) of IPC a dded later on and Section 25 o f Arms Act de l eted later on), registered at PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram , (Annexure P- 1 ) and subsequent proceedings a rising therefrom on the basis o f compromise d ated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-2 ) . 2. T his Court vide order dated 30. 0 4.2026 had directed the partie s to appear bef o re the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate t o get their statements recorde d and the learned Magistrate was directed to se n d its report qua the genuinenes s of the compro m ise.

¶16

GURPREET 2026.05.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶17

CRM-M-13009-2026 (O&M) 2

¶18

P ursuant to the aforesaid order, p arties have appeared before th e Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pataudi, Gur u gram, and got their statement s recorded. On t he basis of the statements so re c orded, Judicial Magistrate Firs t Class, Pataud i , Gurugram has submitted repo r t dated 11.05.2026 to the effec t that the com p romise has been effected bet w een the parties voluntarily an d without any c o ercion or undue influence.

¶19

L earned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 t o 7 have not dis p uted the factum of compromis e between the parties. 5. I n view of the above, no usef u l purpose would be served t o continue with the proceedings before the trial C ourt in the instant FIR. 6. F ollowing the principles laid do w n by the Full Bench judgmen t of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 , thi s petition is all o wed and FIR No.408, dated 3 0.09.2017, under Sections 147 , 148, 323 and 5 06 of IPC (Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2)(3) of BNS ) and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 325 (117(2) BNS) and 326 (118(2 ) BNS) of IPC added later on and Section 25 of Arms Act deleted later on) , registered at P S Bilaspur, District Gurugram, (Annexure P-1) and subsequen t proceedings a rising therefrom on the basis o f compromise dated 25.02.202 6 (Annexure P- 2 ) are quashed.

¶20

P ending miscellaneous applicati o n(s), if any, stand(s) dispose d

¶21

of, accordingl y .

¶22

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE

¶23

15.05.2026 Gurpreet

¶24

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/ N o ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶25

GURPREET 2026.05.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

Raj Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Vishnu Das Vaishnav Alias Rajvir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Bhagirathsinh Alias Bhagirathsin Kirtisinh Chavada Vs State of Punjab

Manish Vs State of Punjab

Khushboo and Another Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Sachin and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Lali Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another