SATISH AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/51987/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011468082025

Filing Number

CRM-M/76837/2025

Filing Date

09-Sep-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/51987/2025

Registration Date

12-Sep-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATISH AND ANOTHER

    Adv. RAJENDER KUMAR DHANIA

  2. 2.SATISH

  3. 3.DHARMENDER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.SATISH

  3. 3.DHARMENDER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash FIR No. 74 (dated 04.02.2018) involving charges under the Arms Act and IPC sections 285/323/34/452/506, after verifying that the parties had genuinely compromised the dispute of their own free will without coercion. The trial court's report confirmed all accused and the complainant were parties to the compromise, no affected persons were left out, and no accused were proclaimed offenders, leading the court to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on established judicial precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/51987/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash FIR No. 74 (dated 04.02.2018) involving charges under the Arms Act and IPC sections 285/323/34/452/506, after verifying that the parties had genuinely compromised the dispute of their own free will without coercion. The trial court's report confirmed all accused and the complainant were parties to the compromise, no affected persons were left out, and no accused were proclaimed offenders, leading the court to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on established judicial precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case