SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Avinash Sharma vs Union Territory Chandigarh & … on 21 September, 2018

CRM-M-7773-2018 (OM)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.M-7773 of 2018
Date of decision : 21st September, 2018

Avinash Sharma
……Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory and another
…Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Chander Singh, Advocate
for Mr. Rajeev Duggal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Gupta, APP for UT, Chandigarh.

Mr. Akshay Sethi, Advocate
for complainant/respondent No.2.
****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.110 dated

20.11.2017 registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, registered at

Police Station Women, Sector 17, U.T., Chandigarh and the consequent

proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of written compromise

arrived at between the parties.

Report has been received from the trial Court after statements

of the parties were recorded regarding the compromise. The trial Court has

reported that the compromise is voluntary and without any pressure or

coercion. The trial Court has also sent the copy of statements of parties.

1 of 2
08-10-2018 07:36:35 :::
CRM-M-7773-2018 (OM)

Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that

petitioner is the only accused and respondent no.2 is the only aggrieved

person in this FIR.

No useful purpose would be served to keep the FIR pending.

In view of the statements and report of the trial Court and the

principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR

(Criminal) 1052, approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant petition is allowed and

the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings conducted on the basis

thereof are quashed qua the petitioner.

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of

compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE

21.09.2018
tarun

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
08-10-2018 07:36:35 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh