ASHWANI BHATIA vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/10205/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 09-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010304682026

Filing Number

CRM-M/11904/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/10205/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHWANI BHATIA

    Adv. PARMINDER SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed petitioner Ashwani Bhatia's petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, quashing FIR No. 0091 dated 09.02.2026 under Section 305 of BNS registered at Police Station Karnal City. The court found that the parties had entered into a valid, voluntary compromise dated 14.02.2026, confirmed by the trial court's report after recording statements of both parties, with the complainant/victim agreeing to the compromise. Applying established principles that the High Court can quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences of primarily private nature when a genuine compromise exists, the court concluded that quashing would advance substantial justice and bring peace between the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/10205/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed petitioner Ashwani Bhatia's petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, quashing FIR No. 0091 dated 09.02.2026 under Section 305 of BNS registered at Police Station Karnal City. The court found that the parties had entered into a valid, voluntary compromise dated 14.02.2026, confirmed by the trial court's report after recording statements of both parties, with the complainant/victim agreeing to the compromise. Applying established principles that the High Court can quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences of primarily private nature when a genuine compromise exists, the court concluded that quashing would advance substantial justice and bring peace between the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case