Allowed

Sachin & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2013CRM-M/10568/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings. Citing a compromise between close relatives and common ancestors with no remaining ill will, the court held that continuing proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.92 dated 8.6.2012 and all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioners.

Sachin & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-10568 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-10568 of 2013 Date of decision: 22.4.2013

Sachin etc.

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.KS Banyana, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr.RN Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana

¶13

Mr.Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2- complainant

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the FIR No.92 dated 8.6.2012 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 307 and 325 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise Annexure P-2, reached between the parties.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

CRM No.M-10568 of 2013 2

¶19

Parties are present in person. In pursuance of the order dated 2.4.2013, passed by this Court, the complainant, duly identified by his counsel, has filed reply by way of his affidavit, which is taken on record. In the reply, the complainant has admitted the factum of compromise.

¶20

The parties have common ancestors and close relatives. They are residing in the close proximity of each other. No ill will is left against each other as the matter stands compromise amicably.

¶21

In view of the law laid down in Dimpey Gujral vs. UT 2013 (1) RCR (Crl.) 747 and in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.92 dated 8.6.2012 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 307 and 325 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶22

22.4.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Sachin & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dharampal Vs State of Haryana

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajeev Dhingra Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Harnam Singh @ Ghora Vs State of Punjab

Ramandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.