Abhinav Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners challenged an order joining them to investigation in a Section 498A case after prior quashing of another FIR. Court held it was not a fit case for custodial interrogation and modified order to remain absolute.
What did the court decide?
Order dated 03.6.2011 made absolute; petitioners not liable to further custodial interrogation.
What the court decided
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.
CRM-M-18052 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on Aug 02,2011
Abhinav Sharma and another
--Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana
--Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.K.S.Rupal,Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Sagar Deswal,AAG,Haryana.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of petitioner No.1 with Arti Sharma was solemnized on 22.1.1999. The complainant lodged FIR No. 606 dated 28.12.2009 under Section 498AIPC. Police Station, Civil Lines, Gurgaon, in which a compromise was effected on 4.1.2010 (Annexure P2) and the complainant sworn an affidavit on 17.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) about the compromise. Petitioner No.1. then filed CRM-M-24268 of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the FIR and that petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2010. However, after a period of four months, the complainant again registered the present FIR under Section 498-A/34 IPC .
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present FIR is a fit case for quashing or if the petitioners require further custodial interrogation given prior compromise.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Abhinav Sharma
- petitioner
another
- respondent
State of Haryana
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRM-M/18052/2011
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court