##PAGE1##

1

CRM-M-27101-2026(O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

274 CRM-M-27101-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 17.09.2026

AMAR LAL ALIAS PALA …PETITIONER VERSUS

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (cid:1) ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL

Present: Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Kundu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

(cid:1)(cid:2) Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0190 dated 02.09.2024 under Sections 316(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulations), Act 2014, Police Station Division No.6, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise dated 22.04.2026.

(cid:3)(cid:2) On 09.09.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with

regard to compromise dated 22.04.2026.

(cid:4)(cid:2) In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar on 27.05.2026. Statement of

JYOTI

2026.09.17 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CRM-M-27101-2026(O&M)

Investigating Officer ACP Manmohan Singh was recorded on 05.06.2026. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, has submitted his report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Question-wise report as

under has been submitted:

“1. As per statement of Investigating Officer there is only one

accused namely Amar Pal alias Pala ie accused/petitioner.

2. As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only

complainant/victim ie. Pooja wife of Deepak Kumar.

3. As per statements of the parties i.e. accused/petitioner and complainant/respondent no.2 are recorded with regard to compromise. However, no written compromise has been placed

on record.

4. As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused and only one complainant/victim and their statements have been recorded. As such, there is no other effected person is

left out in the quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court.

5. As per statement of Investigating Officer, the above said accused has not been declared as a proclaimed offender/person

nor he is accused in any other case.

6. As per statements of the complainant/respondent no.2 and accused/petitioner, they have entered into a genuine, voluntary

and out of free will compromise.

7. There is no other aspect relevant to the present case.”

JYOTI

2026.09.17 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CRM-M-27101-2026(O&M)

(cid:5)(cid:2) Learned State counsel has 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.

(cid:6)(cid:2) 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.0190 dated 02.09.2024 under Sections 316(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulations), Act 2014, Police Station Division No.6, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of

compromise dated 22.04.2026.

7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE

17.09.2026 Jyoti-V

Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

JYOTI

2026.09.17 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document