KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conspectus of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition, is that on 10.01.2009, Dr. Sandeep (Respondent No. 2). C.M.O., P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak was on his emergency duty. One person (Petitioner-accused) inebriated condition came in the emergency ward having pain in his chest. Dr. Sandeep sent him to room No. 6, where he misbehaved with Dr. Paulomi used unparliamentary language and obstructed her in discharging her official duties duties, when he was asked to apologize he again misbehaved with her. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the Petitioner accused, vide F.I.R. No. 15 dated 10.01.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 186 I.P.C. by the Station Urban Estate, Rohtak.

(2.) Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the Petitioner accused to face trail for the aforesaid offence and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

(3.) During the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter vide compromise-deed (Annexure P-2) signed by the concerned parties. They have settled their dispute with the intervention of the respectables of the society. Now, complainant-Dr. Sandeep Kumar and Dr. Paulomi have no grudge against the Petitioner-accused.