Shivam And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.12.2022 Shivam and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

None for the petitioners.

Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.493, dated 11.05.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379B and 506, at Police Station Central, Faridabad, (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.

2.

On 18.08.2018, the following order was passed :- "
 

          

 

!"

 #$%  &#    '

 "!

(  #  

#  

   "

) )   

" )

 *  +       (  #  ,  !  !

#  --.# / 0   "" 

"     !

,,  1! ) # -2 "

 "" 

"         3      4      


 (   



  0  "

2    (   "

 

  ) 4   "

) ) 
 

(     "    "

     )    

          

 "

 + 4      )        0 "

"

  0) 
 

( 

   "       4  )      4   2   0  4   "

) )  "    4             )   4   0 " )   "    

         #   5      -1   

"

3.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from the District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 19.09.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "As per order dated 18.08.2018, the parties had been directed to appear before the trial court on 05.09.2018 or on any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. However, neither on 05.09.2018 nor at any subsequent date, the parties appeared before the trial court for getting their statements recorded. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial which was assigned to the Court of Sh. J.B. Gupta, the then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Charge was framed against the accused on 03.01.

2019 and thereafter, case was adjourned for recording of the evidence. Despite several adjournments for leading the prosecution evidence, none of the parties appeared to get their statements with regard to compromise recorded. The trial was received by transfer in the Court of undersigned on 28.09.2021 and even thereafter, the parties have not appeared to get their statements recorded. During pendency of trial, the complainant Deepak has been examined as PW-10 and a witness, namely, Sanjay Kumar has been examined as PW-11, but PW-10 Deepak has not supported the prosecution case.

compromise..."

4.

Perusal of the aforesaid report reveals that despite opportunities, the parties never appeared before the Court below for recording of their statements w.r.t. compromise. Today, neither counsel for the petitioners nor respondent No.2 has come present. This shows that they are no more interested in pursuing the present petition. 5.

Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed. December 22, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No