SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/3407/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010099152026

Filing Number

CRM-M/1667/2026

Filing Date

20-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/3407/2026

Registration Date

20-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.21 - QUASHING PETITION COMPROMISE U/S 482 CRPC GEN ( 641 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

    Adv. AKSHAY KUMAR DAHIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/3407/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 281 (dated 03.09.2024) against Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar under BNS sections 115(2), 127(2), 333, and 351(2), along with all subsequent proceedings, based on a voluntary compromise between the parties dated 15.01.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the parties had voluntarily settled their dispute with genuine consent; the offences—assault and criminal intimidation arising from a land dispute—lacked heinous character and did not shock public conscience; the complainant's unwillingness to pursue prosecution rendered conviction remote; and continuation would wastefully consume judicial resources without serving public interest. The petitioners' young age and potential career impact further supported quashing under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/3407/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/3407/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 281 (dated 03.09.2024) against Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar under BNS sections 115(2), 127(2), 333, and 351(2), along with all subsequent proceedings, based on a voluntary compromise between the parties dated 15.01.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the parties had voluntarily settled their dispute with genuine consent; the offences—assault and criminal intimidation arising from a land dispute—lacked heinous character and did not shock public conscience; the complainant's unwillingness to pursue prosecution rendered conviction remote; and continuation would wastefully consume judicial resources without serving public interest. The petitioners' young age and potential career impact further supported quashing under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case