Parshant Nath Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2017

CRM No.M-32459 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

1. Crl. Misc. No.M- 32459 of 2016(OM)
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(OM)

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

1 of 2
09-04-2017 16:15:02 :::
CRM No.M-32459 of 2016 2

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

READ  Mr T M Venkataramana vs State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2017

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

2 of 2
09-04-2017 16:15:03 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *