Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/39213/2026 of PARMINDER KAUR AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 27 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (139) CRM-M-39213-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.08.2026 PARMINDER KAUR AND OTHERS … Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Mohit Kumar Gujjar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(139)
CRM-M-39213-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-27.08.2026
PARMINDER KAUR AND OTHERS
… Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. Mohit Kumar Gujjar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Aman Pratap Thakur, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
, J
. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of FIR No. 93 dated 22.04.2026, initially registered under Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), and wherein Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 468, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) were subsequently added, at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 11.07.2026 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
2. Vide order dated 20.07.2026, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise.
3. Report has since been received from learned District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in pursuance to the directions of this Court wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.08.27 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
As per the report(s) compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the private respondents have also made statement to the effect that they would have no objection if the FIR qua the accused- petitioners is quashed. As per the report, victim-Rimpi is not a signatory to the compromise but she appeared and has made statement that matter has been compromised.
4. The trial Court has annexed the statements of the parties along with its report.
5. Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioners.
6. In view of the report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal, and the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it qua petitioners, are hereby quashed.
7. Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
8. Petition stands disposed of. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 27th August, 2026 JUDGE S. Pathania Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.08.27 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document