High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/20243/2016dismissed

Manish Gulati v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2017-05-01Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-20243 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 01, 2017 Manish Gulati

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Gunjan Rishi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms.Shivali, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Monika Gulati for quashing the FIR No.264 dated 05.11.2015 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, on the basis of the compromise.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Vineet Gulati 2017.05.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh From the record, I find that the parties were directed vide order

CRM No.M-20243 of 2016 -2dated 09.09.2016 passed by this Court to appear before the trial Court on 26.09.2016 to get their statements recorded. As per the report of the lower Court, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and again on 07.02.2017, one more opportunity was granted to the parties to appear before the trial Court but the parties did not appear this time also. On the next date, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that FIR pertains to Police Station Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, therefore, direction may be given to Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Dera Bassi for recording the statements of the parties and accordingly, the direction was given the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate on 30.03.2017 but again report has been received that complainant did not appear to get her statement recorded.

Keeping in view the above facts, I find that the parties are not complying with the orders of this Court. As the parties are not appearing before the trial Court for getting recorded their statements, therefore, FIR in question cannot be quashed on the basis of the compromise. Resultantly, the present petition stands dismissed. May 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.05.