HARPRIT ALIAS HARPREET SINGH BAHAD AND OTHERS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/20824/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010618272026

Filing Number

CRM-M/27975/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/20824/2026

Registration Date

16-Apr-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

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARPRIT ALIAS HARPREET SINGH BAHAD AND OTHERS

    Adv. ANIL KUMAR SPEHIA

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.RAJ NAVINDER SINGH BAHAD

  4. 4.KULDIP KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.RAJ NAVINDER SINGH BAHAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed FIR No.0003 (dated 07.01.2021) under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 against petitioners Harprit alias Harpreet Singh Bahad and others, finding that the parties had executed a genuine compromise deed dated 12.03.2026 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report confirmed the settlement was voluntary. The Court held that since the offences involved (cheating/forgery) had a civil character and the parties had fully resolved their dispute, continuing prosecution would constitute abuse of process and injustice, warranting quashing under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/20824/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed FIR No.0003 (dated 07.01.2021) under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 against petitioners Harprit alias Harpreet Singh Bahad and others, finding that the parties had executed a genuine compromise deed dated 12.03.2026 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report confirmed the settlement was voluntary. The Court held that since the offences involved (cheating/forgery) had a civil character and the parties had fully resolved their dispute, continuing prosecution would constitute abuse of process and injustice, warranting quashing under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case