RAJENDER JAIN v. STATE & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 109, 427, 451, 454
Judgment
Mr. T.P.S. Kang, Adv. versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms Fizani Husain, APP with 51 Surender Respondent No. 4 in person. CO!RAM: IHIOINl'!BlL!E-M!R • .DlUlS"TrOCIE M.IL. MIEIHI1J"A 0/o O!RIOIEIR. ].4,].]..2((])].]. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 356/2007 registered under section 109/427/451/454/34 IPC which was lodged by respondent NO. 4 Sanjay Jain. It is stated that charge-sheet in the said case has been filed and the matter is pending consideration on charge . . ' Respondent No. 4 in person· duly identified by 51 Surender. He states that he has compromised the· matter with the petitioner by way of a compromise dated 23.2.2011 which has been placed on record Ex. C-1. Respondent No. 4 states that he has compromised •··. matter with his free will and without any force of any kind. He has no grievance of any kind against the petitioner after the compromise. Since the matter has been compromisQ( no useful purpose will be I served by continuing. with the present FIR and proceedings arising therefrom. Consequently, FIR No. 356/2007 registered under section Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 109/427/451/454/34 IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to payment of cost of Rs.l5,000/- by the petitioner to be . deposited with Delhi High Court . Legal Services Committee. rNIOVlEIMIBIEIR 141-, 2011 awanish 1M .l. IMIE [l={] 1f'
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 109, 427, 451, 454.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 23 Feb 2011.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.