Rahul Bhati v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26823-2024 Date of decision: August 23rd, 2024 Rahul Bhati .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Pardeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Suresh Nain, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Nain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.187 dated 09.07.2022 under Sections 323, 325, 506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sector 65, District Gurugram, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-2).

2.

Vide order dated 24.05.2024 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 09.07.2024 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.

3.

Report has since been received from learned trial Court, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.08.23 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-26823-2024 -2and confirmed. As per the report compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the complainant has also made statement to the effect that he would have no objection if the FIR qua the accusedpetitioner is quashed. 4.

The trial Court has annexed the statements of the parties in original, along with its report.

5.

Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the only aggrieved person in the FIR in question.

6.

In view of the report of the learned trial Court and the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it, are quashed.

7.

Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. August 23rd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.08.23 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh