Parshant Nath Sharma v. State Of Haryana

CRM No.M-32459 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 1.

Crl. Misc. No.M- 32459 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: April 5 , 2017.

Parshant Nath Sharma ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2.

Crl. Misc. No. M- 32475 of 2016(O&M) Neelam Sharma and others ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.

This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-32459 of 2016 (Parshant Nath Sharma v. State of Haryana) and Criminal Misc. No.M-32475 Omkar Singh 2017.04.07 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-32459 of 2016 of 2016 (Neelam Sharma and others v. State of Haryana). The petitioners in both these petitions pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.316 dated 08.08.2016 under Sections 323/498A/406/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Old Faridabad.

It is submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the matter has been amicably resolved between the petitioner in CRM No.M-32459 of 2016 - Parshant Nath Sharma and the complainant i.e. his wife. Photocopy of settlement dated 05.04.2017 reflecting the terms and conditions thereof, produced in Court today is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Parties have decided to part ways. The complainant does not wish to proceed against any of the petitioners in the abovesaid FIR in view of the settlement. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State have no objection in case the concession of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners in both the cases have joined investigation pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, these petitions are allowed. Consequently, orders dated 15.09.2016 in both the abovesaid petition are made absolute.

( LISA GILL ) April 5 , 2017.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Omkar Singh 2017.04.07 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh