Arun Goyal v. State Of Haryana And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-25981 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 01, 2017 Arun Goyal

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.R.D.Anand, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Haryana and Santosh Devi for quashing the FIR No.73 dated 29.06.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police station Chhachrauli, District Yamuna Nagar and subsequent proceedings based thereon etc.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Vineet Gulati 2017.12.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh From the record, I find that in the present case, during the

CRM No.M-25981 of 2014 -2proceedings, the parties effected a compromise and as per order dated 12.10.2015, parties were directed to appear before trial Court to get recorded their statements with regard to the compromise and learned trial Court was directed to submit the report. As per order dated 27.04.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the matter has been compromised and sought time to have instructions regarding filing of fresh petition seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise as the instant petition seeking quashing of FIR was filed on merits.

Today, respondent No.2 along with her counsel is present in the Court. Respondent No.2 has made the statement that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and she has no objection, if the FIR is quashed qua the petitioner.

In view of the statement of respondent No.2, who is mother of the petitioner that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed as the matter has already been compromised, the FIR No.73 dated 29.06.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police station Chhachrauli, District Yamuna Nagar along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The present petition stands allowed accordingly. December 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.12.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh