KANWARJIT SINGH WALIA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/5698/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010168292026

Filing Number

CRM-M/5018/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/5698/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

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

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KANWARJIT SINGH WALIA AND OTHERS

    Adv. BHAWESH CHAUDHARY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 102 (registered under BNS 2023 sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 335, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)) filed by Kanwarjit Singh Walia and others, based on a genuine compromise deed dated 21.01.2026 between the parties. The court, applying Supreme Court precedent from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, found that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute abuse of process and contrary to justice, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report confirmed the settlement was voluntary and genuine. The parties remain bound by the compromise terms and their recorded statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/5698/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 102 (registered under BNS 2023 sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 335, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)) filed by Kanwarjit Singh Walia and others, based on a genuine compromise deed dated 21.01.2026 between the parties. The court, applying Supreme Court precedent from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, found that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute abuse of process and contrary to justice, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report confirmed the settlement was voluntary and genuine. The parties remain bound by the compromise terms and their recorded statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case