SL. N o . Of f i ce s v. Deepak Jain under Sections 30 and 27 of Arms Act, registered at & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ASHISH NAITHANI
- Neutral citation
- 2013:UHC:7028
Outcome
Allowed
compounding application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 27, 30
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the complainant. Both the criminal appeals have been filed 4. the Appellants along with compounding applications, same are supported with affidavits of appellant, complainant and injured wherein parties have annexed their signatures. By means of both criminal appeals…
Judgment
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ambreen Bano, learned counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Operative part
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the complainant. Both the criminal appeals have been filed 4. the Appellants along with compounding applications, same are supported with affidavits of appellant, complainant and injured wherein parties have annexed their signatures. By means of both criminal appeals, 5. appellant has sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 22.03.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in S.T. No.317 of 2010 (Crime No.385 of 2010) State vs. Deepak Jain and Another under Sections 30 and 27 of Arms Act, registered at P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 6. Appellant, complainant as well as injured are present in the Court. Appellant-Jai Chand Jain in CRLA No.157 of 2013 is present through V.C. They are duly identified by their respective counsels. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have filed respective affidavits along with compounding application stating therein that they do not wish to pursue the present criminal Learned State counsel has opposed the case any further and a compromise has been entered between them. 8. compounding application. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In view of the principle of law laid down 10. by Ho’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interest to restore peace and harmony between them. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and compounding application is allowed. Entire proceedings in both appeals arising out of S.T. No.317 of 2010 (Crime No.385 of 2010) State vs. Deepak Jain and Another under Sections 30 and 27 of Arms Act, registered at P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, both the criminal appeals stand disposed of. in view of the above, Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani, J.) 10.12.2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: compounding application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 27, 30.
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.