Criminal Miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR was dismissed as the petitioner voluntarily withdrew the petition during the hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-16454 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-16454 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: October 15, 2012
Dr.Bhupinder Pal Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashish Grover,Advocate for the complainant-respondent no.2.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.33013 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-16454 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.13, dated 27.1.2011, under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, District Faridkot. Heard.
It has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no.2, who has appeared of his own in this petition, that petitioner already moved special leave to appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court against judgment and order dated 16.5.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-10346 of 2012. He has also shown a copy of the said order, which reads as under:-
“Taken on board.
We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Crl.M.No.M-16454 of 2012(O&M)
-2-
However, the petitioner is at liberty to present himself before the trial Court and move appropriate application within two weeks from today.”
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no.2 that petitioner had not complied with the said order of Hon'ble Apex Court and has not presented himself before the trial Court and hence, it is contended that the present petition for quashing of the FIR is not maintainable.
There is force in the argument of learned counsel for respondent no.2. Petitioner is absconding from the trial Court. His presence is ordered to be secured by non-bailable warrants and case is fixed for securing his presence for 19.10.2012 as has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.2.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests for withdrawal of this petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
15.10.2012
Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
