Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 21 April, 2026
1
CRM-M-14554-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
259 CRM-M-14554-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.04.2026
SAHIL TANEJA
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Chandel, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.66 dated 28.09.2022 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 406, 452, 498-A and 506 IPC, Women Police Station, Hansi and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 02.03.2026. Sections 147, 149 and 452 IPC have been deleted from the FIR during investigation.
2. On 17.03.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise dated 02.03.2026.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi on 23.03.2026. Statement of Investigating Officer SI Sunita Devi was also recorded on 23.03.2026.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi has submitted her report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Point-wise report as under
has been submitted:
"(i) In the aforementioned FIR, nine accused have been arraigned.
However, charge-sheet has been filed only against accused Sahil HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.21 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-14554-2026 (O&M) Taneja. Eight other accused namely Shaina, Gunjan, Ritu, Geetu, Rajender, Gaurav, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant were found innocent during the investigation.
(ii) Said accused Sahil Taneja, who is petitioner before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has appeared before the undersigned and his statement has been recorded with regard to compromise, which is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. The accused Sahil Taneja was not declared proclaimed person in this case. As per the report of Investigating Officer, the accused Sahil Taneja is not involved in any other FIR.
(iii) During investigation, no additional accused has been added.
(iv) As per the record of SI Sunita Devi, holding the charge of Women Police Station, Hansi on 23.03.2026, the accused Sahil Taneja is not a proclaimed person in any case.
(v) After the registration of FIR, offences under Section 147, 149 and 452 of IPC were deleted in the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. No new offence was added in the final report.
(vi) Investigation is not pending against any of the accused. Eight other accused namely Shaina, Gunjan, Ritu, Geetu, Rajender, Gaurav, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant were found innocent during the investigation.
(vii) Complainant/victim Charu Rani, wife of Sahil Taneja, d/o Jagdish Kumar has also appeared before this Court and made her statement in support of the compromise, which is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. There is no other injured or aggrieved person in this case.
(viii) The Investigating Officer HC Suman, No. 36/HNS has not appeared before this Court as she is undergoing three months official training at Bhondsi. However, SI Sunita Devi, No. 176/Jind who is in charge of Women Police Station, Hansi on the date of recording of statement i.e. 23.03.2026 has appeared before this Court and suffered statement to the effect that the accused Sahil Taneja son of Ved Parkash in FIR No. 66 dt. 28.09.2022 of Women Police Station, Hansi, u/s 323, 406, 498-A & 506 of IPC has no previous criminal record. Further, the accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender in the present case or in any other case. As per records, except the present case, there is no other case pending against the accused Sahil Taneja. There is only one victim/complainant Charu Rani in the present FIR. She is party to the compromise in the HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.21 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRM-M-14554-2026 (O&M) present case. During investigation, no additional accused has been added.
(ix) The trial is pending at the stage of prosecution evidence.
Examination of PW1 Charu has been completed and PW2 Geeta has been examined in chief.
(x) After careful perusal of the statements given on solemn affirmation by the complainant as well that of accused, the undersigned is convinced that the abovesaid persons have made their statements voluntarily, without any pressure, threat or inducement. The compromise entered into between the parties is genuine."
4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. The dispute which has its genesis in a matrimonial discord, warrants exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023.
5. Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another" 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others" (2012) 10 SCC 303, the petition is allowed.
6. FIR No.66 dated 28.09.2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC, Women Police Station, Hansi and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise dated 02.03.2026.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 21.04.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN Whether Reportable : Yes/No 2026.04.21 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document