Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 13 and 14 of 2017. Case: Rajat and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.. Uttarakhand High Court
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 13 and 14 of 2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Tanuj Semwal, Advocate and For Respondents: A.S. Gill, Learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Prem Kaushal and Milind Raj, Brief Holders |
| Judges | Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 320; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 307, 308, 323, 324, 352, 427, 504, 506 |
| Judgement Date | January 07, 2017 |
| Court | Uttarakhand High Court |
Judgment:
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.
-
Since both the parties in the above noted writ petitions have settled their disputes amicably, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together for the sake of brevity and convenience.
-
By means of writ petition No. 13 of 2017, the petitioners seek the following relief, among others:
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 28.03.2016 bearing case crime No. 53 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 352, 504 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Jhabhrera, District Haridwar qua the petitioners.
-
Likewise, by means of writ petition No. 14 of 2017, the petitioners seek the following relief, among others:
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 20.04.2016 bearing case crime No. 61 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC at Police Station Jhabhrera, District Haridwar qua the petitioners.
-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the private respondents, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petitions.
-
A compounding application being CLMA No. 122 of 2017 has been filed by the parties in WPCRL No. 13 of 2017, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. All the petitioners are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate. Sudesh Pal (Respondent No. 3) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has taken place between the parties and hence, they have filed the compounding application.
-
Likewise, a compounding application being CLMA No. 125 of 2017 has been filed by the parties in WPCRL No. 14 of 2017, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. All the petitioners are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate. RAvinder @ Fauzi (Respondent No. 3) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has taken place between the parties and hence, they have filed the compounding application.
-
Whereas some of the offences...
To continue reading
Request your trial