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

Vivek Malik vs State Of Ut on 10 February, 2014

Author: M.M.S. Bedi

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

                    CRM M-16141 of 2013                                          [1]




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                                    CHANDIGARH.

                                                      CRM M-16141 of 2013

                                                      Date of Decision: February 10, 2014

                    Vivek Malik

                                                           .....Petitioner

                                  Vs.

                    State of UT , Chandigarh and others

                                                           .....Respondents

                    CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                                              -.-

                    Present:-     Mr.Ashish Pannu, Advocate
                                  for the petitioner.

                                  Ms.Aashima Mor, Advocate for UT.

                                  Ms.Nitika Jindal, Advocate for
                                  Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate.


                                        -.-

                    M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner had allegedly assaulted the complainant pursuant to a dispute regarding a fake currency note offered by the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter called his friends who had beaten up the complainant and also interrupted in the functioning of the police officials in front of the Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRM M-16141 of 2013 [2] Petitioner through instant petition, seeks quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise. The petitioner, no doubt, has entered into compromise with the complainant and his son but in the second event which is part of the same transaction the matter has not been compromised. The co-accused of the petitioner seem to have acted on the basis of the instructions of the petitioner.

In view of the above circumstances, partial quashing of FIR will not be prudent.

Petition is dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to take the advantage of the compromise for getting the benefit at the time of final disposal of the doubts, on account of the circumstances. It will also be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for quashing on the basis of compromise alongwith other co-accused.

                    February 10, 2014                                   (M.M.S.BEDI)
                     sanjay                                               JUDGE




Gupta Sanjay
2014.02.12 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh