Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH JAIN AND ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajesh Jain and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors - CRM-16867-M-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 10578 (15 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRL.M.No.16867-M of 2004 and

CRL.M.NO.67206-M OF 2005

DATE OF ORDER:21.11.2006

Rajesh Jain and Others

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

....Respondent(s)

And

Ravish Kumar and Others

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

....Respondent(s)

CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL .*.*.*.

Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. S.K. Hooda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

M.M. AGGARWAL,J

This order shall dispose of two petitions one filed for quashing of FIR No.71 dated 17.3.2004 under Section 306/34 IPC and the other for quashing order dated 24.5.2005 passed by CJM, Jhajjar in case FIR No.71 dated 17.3.2004 under Sections 306/34 IPC and notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C dated 8.11.2005 and 25.11.2005.

Case had been registered on the basis of written complaint of CRL.M.No.16867-M of 2004 and #2#

CRL.M.NO.67206-M OF 2005

Suman Lata widow of Jagdish Chand.

It appears that Jagdish Chand was admitted in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak on 30.1.2004. Then he died on 4.2.2004 with the diagnosis curcinoma lung c 2 operation. Suman Lata widow of Jagdish Chand in her complaint had stated that Jagdish Chand wrote letter dated 2.2.2004 from the hospital and had blamed the present petitioner for his fate. Police on this complaint had registered the case for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC but then presented cancellation report after investigation. Case was taken up by CJM. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate did not agree with the cancellation report and had sent the matter for re-investigation vide order dated 24.5.2005.

When it was not a case of suicide and cause of death was due to diagnosis curcinoma lung c 2 operation then there could be no offence for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide.

Even if Jagdish Chand while having been admitted in hospital had written letter that the present petitioner had harassed him or put him to loss that will not mean that the present petitioners had committed offences under Section 306 IPC.

Both the petitions are allowed. Order dated 24.5.2005 passed by CJM, Jhajjar is set aside and FIR and other subsequent proceedings shall stand quashed.

November 21, 2006 ( M.M. AGGARWAL )

manoj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.