Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishi Pal & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 9 November, 2011
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-18293 of 2011 (O & M)
Date of Decision: November 09, 2011
Rishi Pal & others
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI
LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate, for respondent
Nos.2 to 5.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.270 dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 506 IPC, Police Station, Gurgaon City, District Gurgaon, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), executed on 28.5.2011.
2. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State is Crl. Misc. No. M-18293 of 2011 [2] taken on record. Affidavits filed in Court on behalf of the private respondents are also taken on record.
3. It has been pleaded that dispute took place between the petitioners who are from the Auto Union of the area and respondent Nos.2 to 5 who are Mini Bus Operators in the same area. It has been pleaded that now the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, and therefore, respondents do not want to prosecute the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Assistant Sub Inspector Satya Prakash, contends that factum of compromise has been verified. Statements of relevant persons have been taken. Factum of compromise has been endorsed by them.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances noted above and the fact that parties want to live in peace and harmony, the petition is allowed.
6. FIR No.270 dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 506 IPC, Police Station, Gurgaon City, District Gurgaon, is hereby quashed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
November 09, 2011 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?