IMRAN MOHAMAD ALIAS LUCKY AND OTHERS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CRM-M/65326/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 05-Dec-2025

CNR: PHHC011864172025

Filing Number

CRM-M/97448/2025

Filing Date

17-Nov-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/65326/2025

Registration Date

18-Nov-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Coram

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

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.IMRAN MOHAMAD ALIAS LUCKY AND OTHERS

    Adv. MANPREET SINGH

  2. 2.IMRAN MOHAMAD @ LUCKY

  3. 3.SOHAIL KHAN MALIK @ SHELLY

  4. 4.LAKHWINDER ISNGH @ LAKHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.AJAY KUMAR

  4. 4.HARWINDER SINGH @HARRY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice H.S. GrewalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-65326/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0095 dated 30.09.2024 under Sections 140(3), 127(1), 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), and 190 of BNS, 2023, after finding that the parties had reached a genuine voluntary compromise. The trial court magistrate confirmed the compromise was effected without coercion or undue influence, and the State and other respondents did not dispute the settlement, making continued proceedings purposeless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/65326/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-65326/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0095 dated 30.09.2024 under Sections 140(3), 127(1), 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), and 190 of BNS, 2023, after finding that the parties had reached a genuine voluntary compromise. The trial court magistrate confirmed the compromise was effected without coercion or undue influence, and the State and other respondents did not dispute the settlement, making continued proceedings purposeless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case