DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside of order dtd. 28/11/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, on the ground the same is not in conformity with the direction passed by this Court in CRM-M-63337-2025 vide order dtd. 12/11/2025.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that FIR No. 94 dtd. 6/8/2025 was registered under Ss. 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, on the complaint of the petitioner-Deepak. It is submitted that the FIR pertains to a brutal and pre-planned attack carried out by the private respondents/accused, who were armed with deadly weapons including swords and wooden bats. It is further contended that the petitioner and his family members sustained serious and multiple injuries in the said incident, which stand duly corroborated by the medico-legal reports prepared at the Civil Hospital, Panchkula.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that, as per the averments contained in the FIR, more than ten accused persons had jointly launched the attack and, in the course thereof, decamped with the gold ornaments belonging to petitioner No.4, namely Mamta. It is submitted that the private respondents/accused bore a grudge against petitioner No.2, Vivek, on account of an incident dtd. 14/7/2025, when the said petitioner, along with nearly fifty other boys, had gone to Kedarnath, where the private respondents were left behind. Counsel contends that the said circumstance sowed seeds of animosity against the petitioners. It is further contended that thereafter an exchange of verbal spat took place on social media platforms, which progressively escalated tensions between the parties followed by chain of events leading to the occurrence in question. Learned counsel submits that even after the incident, the grievances raised by the petitioners were not being adequately addressed by the authorities, compelling the petitioner to submit a detailed representation dtd. 17/9/2025. Since no decision was taken on the said representation, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of CRM-M-63337-2025. The said petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 12/11/2025, whereby respondent No.3, the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, was directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner(s) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period. Pursuant to the said directions, the impugned order dtd. 28/11/2025 has now been passed.