M/S Max Protection And Another v. State Of Ut And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 22.04.2026 M/s Max Protection and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T. and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present:
Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Shubham Mangla, Addl. Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh Mr. G.S. Khokhar, Advocate for Mr. Sub S. Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties. DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:- FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station 08.12.2025 384/406 IPC Vigilance Chandigarh 2.
Vide order dated 16.01.2026, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise.
3.
Report dated 18.02.2026 has since been received from learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, in pursuance to the directions of this Court wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. As per the report compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the private respondents have also made statement to the effect that they would have no objection if the FIR qua the accused-petitioners is quashed.
4.
The trial Court has annexed the statements of the parties in original, along with its report. The relevant part of the said report is reproduced herein below:
Sr.
No.
Description 1.
Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR Two accused (i) Present petitioner(s) (ii) Miraz Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Mr. Dev Karan Rajput (petitioners in connected petition, i.e. CRM-M-2206-2026) 2.
Number of complainant/victim(s) One complainant One victim 3.
Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same Yes 4.
In case, any affected person(accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereas; Or His/her statement is till to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of such person No 5.
Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication No 6.
Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence Yes 7.
Any other aspect relevant to the present case. NA
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the only named accused in the FIR in question, and that the private respondents are complainant/aggrieved party therein.
6.
Learned State counsel does not dispute the aforesaid factual position and affirms the same during the course of arguments. 7.
In view of the report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, and the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it, are quashed. 8.
Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below 9.
Petition stands disposed of.
22.04.2026 (SANJAY VASHISTH) reena JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:
YES/NO