ARPAN @ ARPAN SINGH AND OTHERS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CRM-M/21628/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010639522026

Filing Number

CRM-M/29154/2026

Filing Date

17-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/21628/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

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

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARPAN @ ARPAN SINGH AND OTHERS

    Adv. AMBANSHU SAHNI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/21628/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed FIR No. 116 (dated 05.07.2024) against Arpan Singh and others for offences under BNS sections 115, 118(1), 118(2), 189, and 190, based on a genuine compromise reached between the petitioners and private respondents. The court found that the matter was purely personal, involved no serious offence, and that all parties had willingly settled the dispute without coercion. Applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that quashing the proceedings would secure justice and serve no useful purpose in continuing the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/21628/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/21628/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed FIR No. 116 (dated 05.07.2024) against Arpan Singh and others for offences under BNS sections 115, 118(1), 118(2), 189, and 190, based on a genuine compromise reached between the petitioners and private respondents. The court found that the matter was purely personal, involved no serious offence, and that all parties had willingly settled the dispute without coercion. Applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that quashing the proceedings would secure justice and serve no useful purpose in continuing the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case