08.2012 Krishan Gopal v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
petition is allowed and FIR No
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 354, 506
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.176 dated 29.03.2009, registered under Sections 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), at Police Station City Sonepat, District Sonepat, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. While issuing the notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded. In compliance of the order dated 23.05.2012, report of CRM No.M-15349 of 2012 -2- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, dated 21.07.2012, has been received to the effect that the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement and the said settlement is genuine and without any pressure. In view of the above and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No.176 dated 29.03.2009, registered under Sections 354, 506 IPC, at Police Station City Sonepat, District Sonepat, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
07.08.2012 atulsethi (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is allowed and FIR No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 354, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 07 Aug 2012. The bench was JITENDRA CHAUHAN.
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.