Gajendra Pal Singh Malik v. State Of Haryana And Another
CRM-M-40990-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 210-2 CRM-M-40990-2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 Gajendra Pal Singh Malik ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 28.03.2010 Gurgaon City, 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC District Gurugram 1.
Seeking quashing of FIR captioned above on the basis of compromise, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 2.
On the last date of hearing, respondent No.2 who is complainant in the main FIR was present in person and states that he never wanted to send his father in prison and based on such statement, both the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 were called for today. 3.
Today, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are present in Court. Petitioner is accompanied by Ms. Divya Malik, Ms. Geetika Singh and Ms. Shashi Malik. Respondent No.2 is present with his wife Ms. Vijayata Malik and respondent No.2 states that he has no objection if FIR is quashed and set aside as they have settled the dispute. 4.
On the interaction of the Court, petitioner submits that he is ready to withdraw all cases, including his name be treated as deleted from the array of parties if in any case, his name is in JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-40990-2025 array of party as one of petitioner or respondent which is pending against the respondent, except one case filed by him under the Senior Citizen Act. Petitioner's daughter, grand daughter and wife also consented to the undertaking.
5.
Counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits that he has no objection if FIR is quashed.
6.
Perusal of FIR and offence attracted reflect that it is a private dispute qua plot, as such criminal proceeding can be disrupted in such case based on compromise, as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. Moreover, petitioner is 82 years old man who is now on wheel chair and dispute is between father and son. 7.
Given above, the present petition is allowed. FIR and all other consequent proceeding are quashed on the basis of compromise. Parties shall remain bound by their statement made before this Court. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.12.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh