Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an Additional Sessions Judge's order in a corruption FIR. State counsel stated the cancellation report was accepted by the trial Court; the High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
278
CRM-M-46607-2018 Date of Decision: 07.08.2024
Satish Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kapil Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-CBI.
Ms. Nidhi, Advocate for respondent No.4.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 21.01.2016 | --- | 7 & 13 of PC Act 1988 |
Seeking quashing of order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kurukshetra in the above captioned above, petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
07.08.2024
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable? No
ANJU RANI 2024.08.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dated 06.09.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra could be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satish Kumar
State of Haryana
CBI
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
