Anamika Ray v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sood, Advocate for Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Mehul Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashing of FIR No.7 dated 13.01.2024 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Cyber Crime NIIT, District Faridabad, and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 12.07.2024.
The following order was passed on 27.01.2025:-
XX XX XX Status report by way of affidavit of Monica, Assistant Commissioner of Police, NIT, Faridabad has been filed, which is taken on record. Service is complete. Adjourned to 28.02.2025. XX MOHD YAKUB 2025.03.01 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M No.46384 of 2024 2 In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within two weeks from today or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, to get their statements recorded regarding compromise and after recording their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to send report regarding the genuineness of compromise and also to intimate whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the party on or before the date fixed i.e. 28.02.2025. A copy of the order be sent to learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate through fax for compliance.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been received from the concerned jurisdictional Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine and arrived at without any pressure or coercion from anyone.
Operative part
In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 and Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No.7 dated
13.01.2024 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Cyber Crime NIIT, District Faridabad, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed, qua the petitioner. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
28.02.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.03.01 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Feb 2025. The bench was HARPREET SINGH BRAR.
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.