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 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maragendra Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 1 October, 2015

Author: Jitendra Chauhan

Bench: Jitendra Chauhan

CRM-M-41690-2013                                  -1-



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                         CRM-M-41690-2013 (O&M)

                                         Date of decision : 01.10.2015

Maragendra Singh and others
                                                        ...Petitioners

                                Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:   Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

           Mr. Arun Luthra, AAG, Haryana.

           Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for respondent No.2.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') is for quashing FIR No.457 dated 17.09.2013, registered under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants, the private respondent is not causing representation before the trial Court. The case is being repeatedly adjourned and subsequently, her application for exemption ATUL SETHI 2015.10.01 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-41690-2013 -2- from personal appearance has been allowed. Despite the fact that the FIR was registered on 17.09.2013, the case is not progressing.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that no case for quashing the FIR is made out at this stage. However, considering the facts that the case is not progressing on account of non-appearance of the private respondent on one pretext or the other, the petitioners being residents of Agra (Uttar Pradesh), the absence of the private respondent for an indefinite period cannot be allowed.

In the circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the petition, it will be in the interest of the parties, in case, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.


01.10.2015                                  (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
atulsethi                                         JUDGE




                                                                 ATUL SETHI
                                                                 2015.10.01 17:50
                                                                 I attest to the accuracy and
                                                                 authenticity of this document
                                                                 Chandigarh