IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kapoor ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 28.04.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 28.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’) for quashing of order dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in criminal revision petition bearing No. CRR-86-2018 arising out of case bearing FIR No. 419 dated 02.06.20217, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, whereby while allowing the said revision petition, the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned trial Court qua not framing charge under Section 452 of IPC, was set aside and a direction was given to the learned trial Court for passing a fresh order.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant Pooja alleging that on 29.05.2017, the proforma respondents/accused, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly, had entered into her house and in prosecution of their common object, had voluntarily caused injuries to her and also criminally intimidated her. Though the FIR was registered under Section 452 of IPC apart from some other offences, but challan had not been filed under Section 452 of IPC. The learned trial Court heard arguments on charge and by observing that no prima facie case for framing of charge under Section 452 of IPC was made out, proceeded to frame charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2/complainant filed the aforementioned revision petition, which was allowed in the manner as indicated above.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 25.08.2021, thereby setting aside the order of not framing charge under Section 452 of IPC, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside as the learned trial Court had passed a detailed and well reasoned order for not chargesheeting the petitioner and proforma respondents/other accused for commission of punishable under Section 452 of IPC. During the course of investigation, statements of the other witnesses had been recorded who had disclosed that the occurrence had in fact not taken within the house of the complainant as claimed by her. Rather, it had taken place outside her house. However, learned revisional Court did not consider the material placed on record in a proper perspective and committed a grave error in allowing the revision petition. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be upheld.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, has argued that there is no illegality of infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court, which is a well reasoned order. The same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, it is stressed that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is relevant to mention that vide order dated 31.10.2022, passed by this Court, the learned