VICKY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 6.6.2010 at about 5.30 P.M., complainant Mukesh Sehgal son of Kirpa Ram Sehgal (respondent No.2) was present at his shuttering shop. In the meantime, three persons came there and asked him to take the shuttering to Panchkula, but the complainant refused to oblige them. According to the prosecution that thereafter they started beating him and took away Rs.80,000/- alongwith one golden chain after giving him blow with an iron rod. He raised noise and followed them, but they decamped from the place of occurrence.

(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioners-accused caused injuries to the complainant and took away his Rs.80,000/- alongwith one golden chain. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.98 dated 6.6.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Pinjore, Distt.Panchkula.

(3.) During the course of the investigation, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties. They have amicably settled their dispute.