HARISH SINGH MEHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2020-10-08. HARISH SINGH MEHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 589 of 2020 Harish Singh Mehra and another ...... Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S. S. Adhikari, AGA, assisted by Mr. U. K. Uniyal, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, Advocate for the complainant. JUDGEMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant petition has been filed to quash the charge-sheet th st dated 8 August, 2020, cognizance order dated 21 September, 2020, passed in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2020, State vs. Harish Singh Mehra and another, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar, (‘the case’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. In fact, for amendment in the prayer, an application has been filed, which stands allowed. 4. The case is based on an FIR lodged by respondent no.
3, Dhamuram against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3 (I) (X) and 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and proceedings of the case were instituted, in st which, on 21 September, 2020 cognizance has been taken. 5. A compounding application has been filed by the parties. Petitioners, who have been identified by Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate, and the respondent no. 3-the informant Dhamuram, who is identified by Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, Advocate and Navin Chandra Karnataka, who is identified by Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava, Advocate have joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing. Respondent no. 3, the informant and Navin Chandra Karnatak, the injured have stated that they have settled the dispute with the petitioners. 6. Parties have settled the dispute.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that based on amicable settlement between the parties, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The petition is allowed. 8. The entire proceedings of the case are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. 9. The compounding application stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J. ) 08. 10. 2020 Kaushal
Source: High Court of Uttarakhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.