A petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an FIR was dismissed as infructuous since the underlying trial court case had already been disposed of via settlement.
Petition disposed of as infructuous because the undertrial case was already dismissed by the trial court.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31138 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.01.2017
Rakesh Sood
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Ms. Asha Singh, Advocate for Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
SURINDER GUPTA J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 8 dated 06.01.2010 registered for the offences punishable under Section 380, 448, 452, 506, 511, 148 and 149 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana.
Heard.
Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Gurmeet Singh submits that the case bearing FIR No. 8 dated 06.01.2010 has already been disposed of by the trial Court on 12.12.2016.
Learned counsel for complainant-respondent no. 2 submits that the case was disposed of under the settlement between the complainant and accused party.
In view of submissions made by learned State counsel and counsel for respondent no. 2, the instant petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
January 09, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar 2017.01.10 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Sood
State of Punjab
Respondent no. 2
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
