Inderjit Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another
!
!
INDERJIT SINGH ... Petitioner "#$ % & '
()'
%" % *
!"
# " % * + #,- This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
$ %
& '
()
( * + # , ,- ,$. ,/ , $,0 & ( 1 1#(2 31450$6 11 3) ( 1 ( ,.
,7 ,$/ 45 06 3 45 086 3 9 1
3 1 (
# 4 1 6 1 ( * +# , ,- ,$.
-2- ,/ , $,0 & ( 1 1 #( 2 31450$6
31 3 3 1 31"1 3 ( 11
" :
$/ $$ ,$; 3 11) ( ( 11)
( ( ( 1 " 1 ( (
(
1 < 1
( * &1 31 3 # -$$ 7 $$ ,$;
% < 1 ( * &131 0
!
" #
$ %!&
'
(() .
% 11
& =
-3-
!
""
#
$ %
33 *+,-.
& /
0,+
&1&.
2
& 2 2
2 *+3-& '
(
'
& '
) '*4 56
%
7 =.
) *89-.
/
&
/
*8:- "
8+9*3-
&1&
0,+
&1& *8+-.
;
0,+
&1&
2
2<
=
& /
0,+
&1&
-4-
.
/
*88-.
&1&
& 0,+
&
;
=
8+9
&1&
*80- .
0,+
&1& / >/=< %
& .
/
= 4 & /
.
0,+
&1&
4
4 & /
.
/
.
& / =
.
&
=
&
/ % 1(1 1 1 )
( ( 1 3" !>31 & +
,
* * $
$
! !
11 3 15 - ?
-53" !>31 & = - .
/ # #
+
$
12$*
5 $1'.
7 $1'$
0,+
4 &
.
4 & ? $1'
.
4 & ;
@
8+9
& &1 :3A8.
;
0,+
= $1'!
;
/
0,+
4 &
/
? $1'2 @
4 & / ? *-
*-
? $1'%.
;
/
? $1'1
/
0,+
4 &
-6-
4
;
.
? $1'
.
/
;
? $1'3 &
;
? $1'0
4 & ;
? $1'$ .
/
:B, :B3 >
=
.
4 &
;
= .
;
311 ( 1 133" ( % ( 1 '1" 3 1 3
-7- - % !@31 & 4"# 5
&
$
)67869
3!*
3 ( ? 1
5
1 " )
(
1 31 & ) * + 1 ( % 3 !@31
& 5 =:3@
8+9&1&
& ;
C D
/ = 4 & 0,+&1&
& :0+
&
8+9&1& "
/
/ ;
7 "
?
? E
? F &
'
;
1 * + 1 1 11(
0 1
" " 1
( +1 1" 1 + ,,,,A0
11( 0 1 1 1 ) 3
-8- " 1 ( "( %
1" 3 1 11( 3 1 ( * + ) ",$. 3 ( %
1 1 ,.
,7 ,$/ 3" 1
"
(1" 1
1 1 31 3 )
3 1& (
" 31" 1 1 1
1 13 11 " % 3 3 ( 1 3 11 % ( " ( % (1",7" 1
"
1 & ( '1" " 135 " 1 ( 1 10.
Considering the facts of the instant case and noticing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in "Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another", (2012) 10 SCC 303, "Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh" reported as 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, that the dispute
-9involved in the instant case pertains to offence under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC which cannot be perceived as falling within the prohibited category or as an offence that is heinous and grossly shocking to the conscience of the Court or having a wide pervasive impact on the social or public order, the instant petition is allowed and the case FIR No.0244 dated 24.08.2015 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed, in light of the compromise (Annexure P-3). However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- by the petitioner to be deposited with the "High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund" within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11 +" % *- ' . !
E
'
(A
CA# + 31
CA#