Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. State pointed out that charges framed on 10.01.2020 were never challenged. Counsel sought withdrawal; petition disposed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the framing of charges.
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.
209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 22091 of 2023
Date of Decision: 19.09.2024
Gurpreet Singh @ Gurpreet Singh Brar
...Pe��oner
Versus
State of Punjab and another …Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the pe��oner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Sta�on | Sec�ons |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08 | 28.01.2015 | Dayalpura, District | 420, 34 IPC |
| Bathinda,Punjab |
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
19.09.2024 Jyo� Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.
1
Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.20 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 420, 34 IPC could be quashed when charges had already been framed and not challenged.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurpreet Singh @ Gurpreet Singh Brar
State of Punjab
Respondent No.2
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
