Chetna @ Chetna Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chetna @ Chetna Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition under S.528 BNSS allowed; FIR No.469 dated 22.12.2023 registered under Sections 384 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram, and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-2).

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.469 dated 22.12.2023 registered under Sections 384 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram, and the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the compromise and the report thereon, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR.

Ratio / Principle

On the statements recorded pursuant to this Court's order dated 06.04.2026, the learned Magistrate reported on 14.05.2026 that the compromise had been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.

Key takeaways

Neither the learned State counsel nor the counsel for respondent No.2 disputed the factum of the compromise between the parties.ratio¶4
The Court's decision to quash rests on following the principles laid down in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.ratio¶6
Following those principles (as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303), the petition is allowed and FIR No.469 dated 22.12.2023 registered under Sections 384 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram stands quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on compromise — Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J., oral), CRM-M-18416-2026 (O&M), decided 29.05.2026. Petition under S.528 BNSS sought quashing of FIR No.469 dated 22.12.2023, Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram, registered under Sections 384 and 120B IPC, and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to this Court's order dated 06.04.2026, the parties recorded statements before the JMFC, Gurugram, and the Magistrate's report dated 14.05.2026 found the compromise effected voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence; the factum of compromise was not disputed by the State counsel or counsel for respondent No.2-complainant. Holding that no useful purpose would be served by continuing trial proceedings, and following the Full Bench ruling in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, approved in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners.

CRM-M-18416-2026 (O&M) (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (229 ) CRM-M-18416-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.05.2026

CHETNA @ CHETNA SINGH AND ANR . .. Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: M r . Amit Sharma, Advocate for M r . Vishal Sharma, Advocate for t he petitioners M s . Himani Arora, DAG, Haryan a M r . Tapish Gupta, Advocate for r e spondent No.2-complainant

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

T h e present petition has been f iled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nag a rik Suraksha Sanhita (for sho r t “BNSS”) for quashing of FIR No.469 d a ted 22.12.2023 registered unde r Sections 384 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram a nd subsequent proceedings emanating the r efrom on the basis of co m promise dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-2 ) .

T h is Court vide order dated 0 6 .04.2026 had directed the parties to appe a r before the trial Court to get t h eir statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send hi s report qua the genuineness of the compro m ise.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-18416-2026 (O&M) (2)

P u rsuant to the aforesaid order, p arties have appeared before the learned J u dicial Magistrate First Class , Gurugram and got their statements rec o rded. On the basis of the stat e ments so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 14.05.2026 to the effect that the compromise h a s been effected between the pa r ties voluntarily and without any coercion o r undue influence.

L e arned State counsel as well as c ounsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise b e tween the parties.

In view of the above, no useful p urpose would be served to continue with t h e proceedings before the trial C ourt in the instant FIR.

Followi n g the principles laid down by t he Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 an d approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 , t his petition is allowed and FI R No.469 dated 22.12.2023 registered und e r Sections 384 and 120B of IP C at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram and s ubsequent proceedings emanat i ng therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P -2) are quashed qua the petitioners.

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

29.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.