Allowed

Ashu Kumar Sehgal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2014CRM-M/18795/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition to quash an FIR registered for misbehaviour at PGI. The court quashed proceedings based on the complainant's compromise and pardon, subject to the condition that the petitioner avoid similar offences for ten years.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the FIR and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom to be quashed on the basis of compromise subject to the condition that the petitioner will not commit the similar offence within next

Ashu Kumar Sehgal Vs Ut of Cha… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-18795-2014 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-18795-2014 (O&M). Decided on: October 14, 2014.

¶4

Ashu Kumar Sehgal

¶5

..... Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of UT, Chandigarh and another

¶8

..... Respondent(s)

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.Divjyot S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Gill, Public Prosecutor, for UT, Chandigarh.

¶11

Ms.Neelam Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶13

On account of misbehaviour of the petitioner with the complainant a doctor in the PGI, FIR No.173 dated 8.4.2014, under Sections 341 & 354-D IPC, was registered at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

¶14

This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The complainant was present on last date of hearing and she submitted that she being a resident of Port Blair, Andamans, do not want to proceed against the petitioner and she expressed that she has no objection in case the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are quashed

¶15

¶16

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2014.10.16 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-18795-2014 (O&M)

¶18

considering the matter to have been compromised. She admitted the compromise Annexure P2.

¶19

The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of 15 days. A receipt of deposit of Rs.20,000/- in the above Poor Patient Fund, has been placed on record.

¶20

Taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been compromised and following the judgment in case Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.), 1052 , I do not find any ground not to allow the present petition especially when the complainant has shown magnanimity and pardoned the petitioner.

¶21

The petition is allowed. The above said FIR and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise subject to the condition that the petitioner will not commit the similar offence within next ten years. In case of any such complaint, it will be open to the prosecution agency to move an application for revival of the proceedings.

¶22

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶23

October 14, 2014. rka

¶24

¶25

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2014.10.16 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ashu Kumar Sehgal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashu Kumar Sehgal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Vs State of Haryana

Satnam Kaur Gill Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parwinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baljeet Singh @Pappa Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kaur and Others Vs Kailash Rani