Allowed

Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/21751/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR No.37 and subsequent proceedings under Sections 331(6), 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, upon receipt of a report from Judicial Magistrate confirming a genuine compromise between petitioners and respondent No.2.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.37 dated 22.03.2026 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

266

¶3

CRM-M-21751-2026 Date of Decision:10.09.2026

¶4

JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Yuvraj Singh Sran, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The prayer in this petition preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), is for quashing of FIR No.37 dated 22.03.2026, registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur, under Sections 331(6), 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

The report dated 01.05.2026 received from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sunam, through the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur, filed in the Registry, is taken on record.

¶17

Vide order dated 21.04.2026, a Coordinate Bench had directed the parties to appear before the Area Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise ( ibid ).

¶18

The Area Magistrate/trial Court was to submit a report in this

¶19

NISHA 2026.09.11 18.32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-21751-2026 -2-

¶21

regard in terms of the said order.

¶22

Pursuant to the order dated 21.04.2026, the parties appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sunam, and as per the report dated 01.05.2026 submitted to this Court, both parties got their respective statements recorded.

¶23

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. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS can be exercised in such like situations in order to prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial to be faced by the parties, when there are remote chances of conviction of the accused. The compromise in question is found to be fully in consonance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in “ Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543 ” and a Five Judges Bench of this Court in “ Kulwinder Singh and

¶24

others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 ”.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid report of the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sunam accompanied by statements of both the parties, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.37 dated 22.03.2026, registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur, under Sections 331(6), 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶26

		(VIKR
Septe	mber 10, 2026
Nisha-1
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶27

NISHA 2026.09.11 18.32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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