Allowed

Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2022CRM-M/1933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed an FIR registered under Section 160 IPC for affray, holding that the accused's inebriated conduct did not disturb public peace. The Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, discharged bail bonds, and imposed a conditional order for the surrender of firearms and arms licenses within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was quashed. Bail bonds were discharged. All pending applications were closed. The petitioners were directed to surrender firearms and arms licenses within 30 days.

Abhimanyu Vs State of Haryana — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CRM-M No. 1933 of 2021

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

243 CRM-M No. 1933 of 2021 (O&M) Reserved on January 05, 2022 Pronounced on : 09.02.2022

¶5

Abhimanyu and Others ......Petitioners

¶6

Vs. State of Haryana ......Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶8

Present: Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate

¶9

for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
01	01.01.2021	Sector-20, Panchkula, District Panchkula	160 of IPC

¶15

Challenging the registration of FIR on affray punishable under Section 160 of IPC, the accused have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

¶16

The gist of the allegations against the petitioner(s) is that on 1^st January, 2021 i.e. on the new year eve, the police received an information that three boys are creating commotion and using abusive language in Sector 20 Market during midnight. On receiving such information the police officials reached at the spot and found the accused inebriated condition, they were detained and subsequently the police recorded statement of the informant which led to registration of FIR captioned above.

¶17

Affray has been defined in Section 159 of IPC when two or more persons fight in a public place and disturb public peace they are said to commit an affray. Although they were fighting in the public place but there is no evidence that they were disturbing public peace. It was the duty guard who noticed them and subsequently called police officials. As per the FIR nothing

¶18

SUNIL DEVI 2022.05.09 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M No. 1933 of 2021

¶20

--2--

¶21

sufficient has been stated to constitute affray.

¶22

Given above, although it may not be an offence of affray and would not fall under Section 160 of IPC, but such behavior is certainly not appropriate. Although this court proceed to quash the FIR however, this court would pass a conditional order to ensure that such type of people do not get arms licences. Given above, the petitioners should surrender their firearms if any within ten days from today.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners. The bail bonds of the petitioner are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

¶24

Given the nature of allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner/accused shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, and the arms license to the concerned authority within 30 days from today and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, if the concerned Superintendent of Police gives written permission to arrive at such a decision to retain the firearms and license, then this condition shall not be applicable.

¶25

Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above.

¶26

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 09, 2022 Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶27

SUNIL DEVI 2022.05.09 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana

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

Subhash Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Singh @ Kala Sidhu Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Lal Vs State of Punjab

Balraj Alias Goli Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Anil Vs State of Haryana