Amrik Singh v. State Of Haryana And ANR

CRM-M No. 8420 of 2021 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.8420 of 2021 Reserved on :02.05.2022 Pronounced on: 04.07.2022 Amrik Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 15.08.2020 Civil Lines, Karnal 406, 420, 506 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. 2.

During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. 3.

After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent. 4.

On 25-03-2021, the aggrieved person Vikram Chand (R-2) stated before the CJM Karnal that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5.

As per the concerned court's report dated 27-04-2021, the Investigator informed the ANJU RANI 2022.07.04 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 8420 of 2021 --2-- court that there were two complainants, one Vikram Singh (R-2) and another his brother Sandeep, who has gone abroad.

6.

A perusal of memo of parties reveals that the petitioner neither arraigned Sandeep Singh as respondent nor attached his No Objection to the compromise. 7.

Since all the victims did not state about their no objection to the compromise and also the reasons which led to the compromise, as such this court cannot proceed further in this matter.

8.

Given above, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition and there would be no necessity re-examine the Vikram Singh, Petitioner Amrik and the Investigator, whose statements stand recorded. The copies of the statements alongwith report would suffice.

Petition dismissed in the terms mentioned above, with liberty reserved. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.07.2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2022.07.04 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH