CRM-M No. 272 of 2022 · Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. K.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) [1] Through this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in FIR No.435 dated
24.10.2021 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC registered at Police Station Sector-9, Ambala City. [2] On 12.02.2024, following order was passed:-
In pursuance of the last order, a demand draft amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh only) has been handed over by learned counsel for the petitioner to the learned counsel representing the complainant. The parties are also present in-person in Court and assure that they would appear before the office of Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur on 19.02.2024 for the remaining compliance as regards transfer of plot in question back in the name of the petitioner. List on 27.02.2024. Interim order to continue.
[3] In pursuance thereof, both the parties are ad idem that plot in MONIKA RANI 2024.02.29 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CRM-M-272-2022 2 question now stands transferred in favour of the petitioner against which a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2/complainant and thus, no dispute remains pending between the parties. [4] Even otherwise the petitioner is no more required for further investigation as per the learned State counsel. [5] Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 24.02.2022 passed by this Court is made absolute, however, the petitioners shall keep on appearing before the Investigating Agency as and when required and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) CrPC. [6] Disposed of accordingly.
27.02.2024 monika ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No MONIKA RANI 2024.02.29 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 438, 438(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 Feb 2024. The bench was HARKESH MANUJA.
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.