Crl.Misc. No.M-8840 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 19, 2011. Crl.Misc. No.M-8840 of 2010. Tejpal Singh Cheema .. Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T., Chandigarh. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Premjit S.Hundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner Tejinder Pal Singh Cheema seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No.200 dated 25.08.2009, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 and 336 IPC and under Sections 25, 57, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh, at the instance of Parveen Mahamana alleging that he was assaulted by six persons named in the FIR. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had allegedly fired a shot aiming at Varinder Dhillon, though the shot did not hit anyone. Vide order dated 12.05.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the above said FIR on the basis of . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-8840 of 2010 compromise, on the basis of report received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, prepared on the basis of statements made by all the accused and the complainant in the Court. It is not out of place to mention here that Varinder Dhillon had not appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Reasons for his non-appearance are not made out. Learned counsel for U.T., Chandigarh, has opposed the application for pre-arrest bail contending that since one of the affected parties was not joined in the compromise, the U.T., Administration, intends to file SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, challenging the quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. Since the FIR stands quashed, there does not appear to be any apprehension of arrest. The petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. However, taking into consideration, the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case the petitioner is required to be arrested in the present case on account of revival of the FIR pursuant to any orders passed by Higher Court, the petitioner will be given 7 days notice in writing to enable him to avail the legal remedy available to him. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 19, 2011. rka . . . 2