09-2011 Narender Sharma v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
2007 (3) Law Herald 2225, the instant petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Rattu, DAG, Haryana Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent no.2 MAHESH GROVER, J Affidavit of respondent no. 2 has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel opposite. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR no. 312 dated 1.5.2006 registered under Section 498-A, 406 IPC IPC at Police Station City Panipat and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to the FIR, the parties have resolved their differences amicably and in view of this, they do not wish to pursue with the litigation any further. On 3.2.2011, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court and get their statements recorded in support of their claim that Crl. Misc. No. M-34118 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the matter has been compromised. Trial Court was also directed to send the report about the factum of compromise and also the fact that such statements were not result of any undue pressure or coercion. Report has since been received from the concerned Court and according to it, petitioner as well as respondent no.2 have compromised the matter on their own free will. In view of the above facts and also keeping in view the observations of Full Bench in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald 2225, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR no. 312 dated 1.5.2006 registered under Section 498-A, 406 IPC IPC at Police Station City Panipat and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. September 8, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2007 (3) Law Herald 2225, the instant petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Sep 2011. The bench was MAHESH GROVER.
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.