Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mamman Khan vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 3 May, 2016

Author: Kuldip Singh

Bench: Kuldip Singh

CRM-M-37470-2015                                                            1

258
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
                                             CRM-M-37470-2015 (O&M)
                                             Date of Decision: 03.05.2016
MAMMAN KHAN                                                  ... Petitioner
                                       VS.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER                                   . ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH.
Present:    Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.
            Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate,
            for respondent No. 2.
       1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
            judgment?
       2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not?
       3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

         ****
KULDIP SINGH, J (ORAL)

The prayer in this present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C is for quashing of FIR No. 246 dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 147/447/506/149 at Police Station Sohna, Gurgaon alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-2).

Report of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sohna, has been received which shows that the respondent has not turned up for making the statement before him.

The perusal of the FIR shows that it was alleged by respondent No. 1 that the present petitioner alongwith 40-50 men 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2016 00:04:44 ::: CRM-M-37470-2015 2 and 10-15 women entered the park adjoining their company i.e. M/s Mayar Biotech Sez, Rahaka, ploughed the park and also threatened him. In this way, the land belonging to company was allegedly trespassed. Therefore, the company is victim.

Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has stated that there is no compromise between the accused and company.

It being so, no ground to quash the FIR on the basis of alleged compromise is made out. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.

May 3, 2016                                           [ KULDIP SINGH]
Suresh Kumar                                               JUDGE




                                    2 of 2


                 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2016 00:04:45 :::