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 4, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravi Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 5 August, 2008

Author: Ajai Lamba

Bench: Ajai Lamba

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.



                                          Criminal Misc. 12289-M of 2008

                                 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 5, 2008



RAVI KUMAR AND ANOTHER                                ...... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.                              ..... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana.
         Mr. Rajeev Kaswan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.



AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.311 dated 3.12.2007, under Sections 379, 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Uklana, District Hisar (Annexure P-1).

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was an allegation of theft of cheques. Even complaints for commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed; the same, however, were withdrawn as the parties had entered into a compromise. Respondent No.2/complainant-Raghubir Jain, is present in person, as identified by Shri Rajeev Kaswan, Advocate. Even an affidavit has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the complainant Criminal Misc. 12289-M of 2008 2 would have no objection if the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

It seems that the issue between the petitioners and respondent No.2 was commercial in nature. The matter having been settled and respondent No.2 showing no inkling of prosecuting the petitioners and not bringing any evidence, continuance of proceedings would result in wastage of time of the court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the statement given by respondent No.2 the petition is allowed. FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

August 5, 2008                                         ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                           JUDGE