Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/28094/2026 of GIRISH SHARMA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR on 20 July 2026
-1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 305 CRM-M-28094-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.07.2026 GIRISH SHARMA ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:20.07.2026
GIRISH SHARMA
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present:
Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate
for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bareen Pratap Singh, AAG Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, 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. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 100 dated 08.05.2024 under Sections 420 and 408 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division No. 8, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise 06.02.2026.
2. On 18.05.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise.
3. In compliance of the order dated 18.05.2026, parties appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar on 04.06.2026. Statement of the Investigating Officer, ASI Avtar Singh No. 782, P.S. Division No. 8, Jalandhar was also recorded on 04.06.2026. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has submitted his report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under: “1. Only one person has been arrayed as accused in the present FIR namely Girish Sharma. He has appeared and suffered statement regarding compromise. From the perusal of the file and the statement of the Investigating Officer, it transpires that accused has never been declared proclaimed offender in the present case;
2. Sanjeev Dhingra is the complainant in this case and he has appeared and made statement in support of the compromise. There is no other aggrieved/victim in the present case;
3. The trial is at the stage of evidence of the prosecution;
4. From the statements of the parties suffered before this Court, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties;
5. From the perusal of the statement of the Investigating Officer, it transpires that no criminal case is pending against the accused Girish Sharma.”
4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
5. Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others” (2012) 10 SCC 303, the petition is allowed.
6. FIR No. 100 dated 08.05.2024 under Sections 420 and 408 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division No. 8, Jalandhar with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioner.
7. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) July 20, 2026
JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No