IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

272 CRM-M-57011-2025 (O&M).

Date of decision: 16.02.2026.

SUKHVINDER SINGH @SUKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 25.02.2025 under Section(s) 117(2), 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Manju Rani, wife of Sunny Sharma. The translated version of the same is reproduced as under: -

“I am resident of the above address and engaged in labour work. My husband has passed away. On 16.01.2025 at about 5 PM, I was going back to my house from the Court Complex at Malout, so when I reached the door of my house, my mother-in- law Pushpa Rani wife of Lathi Sharma resident of village Malout, my maternal sister-in-law Rajni wife of Sukhwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of Datta Colony, Bathinda Road, Malout were already standing there. My mother-in-law, who was holding a baseball in her hands, raised lalkara that catch her and teach her a lesson for not giving her money. On saying this, my sister-in-law hit me with her baseball bat on my legs which hit my left leg and knee. Then my brother- in-law through Sukhwinder Singh hit me with another baseball bat on my left leg which hit my left knee joint. Then my sister-in- law Rajni hit me on my left shoulder with her baseball bat and then these three of them hit me in the back. I raised alarm then they threatened me and fled away from the spot with their weapons. The bone of contention is that when my husband Sunny Sharma was alive, we had purchased a PICKUP vehicle and my husband had taken Rs.50,000/-from my mother-in-law as assistance. I, a poor woman, cannot repay this, that is why they have hit me. Please take action against my mother-in-law Pushpa Rani, sister-in-law Rajni Sharma and brother-in-law Sukhwinder Singh.”

3 However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition.

4 The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 13.10.2025 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.

5 Reply already filed on behalf of the respondent-State is taken on record.

6 Pursuant to the said order, a report has also been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide Memo No.675 dated 26.11.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-

“1. It is submitted that complainant namely Manju Sharma and accused namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh, Rajni and Puspa in their respective statements have stated on oath that the matter has been mutually compromised between them and after perusing the statements of the parties, this Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.

2. In response to para no. (i), it is submitted that only three persons namely Sukhvinder Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh, Rajni and Puspa are arrayed as accused in the present case.

3. In response to para no. (ii), it is submitted that there is only complainant namely Manju Sharma in the present case.

4. In response to para no. (iii), it is submitted that, no accused person has been declared proclaimed offender.”

7 Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have a