Allowed

Gurpreet Singh Toor and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2014CRM-M/12911/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought compounding of an offence under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Upon the Statof Punjab and complainant agreeing to the petitioners lifting the petition, the court dismissed the matter as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a stay on the proceedings before the Trial Court for four months.

Gurpreet Singh Toor and Anr. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-12911-2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-12911-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2014

¶5

Gurpreet Singh Toor and another

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr. Sartej S. Narula, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶13

Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶14

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (Oral)

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, is compoundable one and an application has been presented by the petitioners before the complainant for compounding of the offence.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant submits that the application presented by the petitioners for compounding of the offence shall be considered in accordance with the settled policy within three months of passing of this

¶17

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.12.17 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-12911-2011 (O&M) 2

¶19

order.

¶20

In view of the statement suffered by learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the present petition and prays for withdrawal of the same at this stage with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition if the compromise is not materialized.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶22

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

¶23

The proceedings before the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed for next four months of passing of this order.

¶24

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) December 16, 2014 JUDGE PKapoor

¶25

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.12.17 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gurpreet Singh Toor and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh Toor and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Ranjit Kaur

Navtinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Prem Lal Midda Vs State of Punjab and Another

Tarsem Lal Vs State of Haryana etc.

Jaspal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gaurav Guleria Vs State of Punjab