IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

299 CRM-M-61030-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2025 Daulat Maseeh @ Daulat Masih @ Dola @ Daula and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Mayank Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. (Through VC)

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No. 427 dated 25.12.2020 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 506 of IPC (Section 307 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa along with all the subsequent proceeding having emanated therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 12.11.2024 (Annexures P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis of the statement made by respondent No. 2/complainant Akash alleging therein that on 24.12.2020, when he along with his brother/respondent No. 3 Ajay was standing in the street, then the petitioners, armed with weapons, made exhortation and opened an assault upon respondents No. 2 and 3, thereby causing them injuries. On hearing hue and cry, the neighbours rushed to save them and on seeing them, the assailants fled away while threatening to kill them in future. The injured were admitted in the hospital and were given treatment. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged that about 20-25 days back, an altercation had taken place between the parties, in which, the matter was compromised but the accused persons were having grudge against the complainant party. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioners were arrested and subsequently they were released on bail. The trial is going on.

3. This petition has been filed on the grounds that a compromise has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 and in pursuance thereof, respondents No. 2 and 3 have agreed to get the aforementioned FIR quashed. The said compromise has also been reduced into writing and a copy thereof has been placed on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even though offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added in the instant case, however, neither respondent No. 2/complainant nor victim/respondent No.3, while appearing before the learned trial Court as PW-6 and PW-7, respectively, have supported the prosecution version in their cross examinations since they stated that on the fateful day, some one had pushed them, due to which, they had fallen down and respondent No. 3/PW-7 received injuries on his head and thereafter, some unknown persons had caused injuries to them. They further stated that they could not see or notice any of the persons, who had caused injuries to them. More so, a perusal of the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Sanket Setia, Medical Officer, PHC, Jamal would show that he had stated that his opinion was based on the opinion of treating doctor dated 02.01.2021 as well as document, wherein it was written that the injury sustained by respondent No.3-Ajay was ‘dangerous to life’. However, the said opinion was not given by him and it was based only on the opinion of treating doctor. It is further argued that the petitioners had been falsely implicated. The compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure and, therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings is liable to be quashed.

5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have appeared through their counsel and have admitted the factum of compromise. It is submitted by learned counsel for these respondents that they have no objection if