Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JASWANT RAI GUPTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaswant Rai Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors - CRM-40158-M-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 12037 (5 December 2006)

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

CRL.M.No.40158-M of 2004

DATE OF ORDER:15.12.2006

Jaswant Rai Gupta

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

....Respondent(s)

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

Present: Mr. Ajai Pal Singh, Advocate.

Mr. G.S. Bhandari, DAG, Punjab.

M.M. AGGARWAL,J

In this case, complainant-respondent No.2 had earlier put in appearance. Reply has also been filed on her behalf but none is appearing for respondent No.2-complainant to contest.

This is petition for quashing of the Fard Talwana dated 31.5.2004 vide which the name of the petitioner has been implicated and the summoning order dated 15.6.2004.

The facts of the case are that Neelam respondent No.2 had filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 323/325/452/504/506/120- B/148/149 IPC in which Tarsem Lal was shown as accused No.2. His CRL.M.No.40158-M of 2004 #2#

parentage etc were not mentioned. Complaint remained pending for quite long time. Thereafter Fard Talwana was filed on behalf of the complainant showing the name of this Tarsem Lal as present petitioner i.e Jaswant Rai Gupta son of Lachhman Dass in stead of that Tarsem Lal.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not at all concerned nor was he ever summoned while process was issued by the Court and that he could not be implicated by filing a Fard Talwana in which details of his name had been given instead of Tarsem Lal shown as accused No.2.

I am of the view that the trial Magistrate could not issue summons as against the present petitioner only because the fard talwana had been given.

I have gone through the complaint and the summoning order.

At no stage, details of Tarsem Lal shown as accused No.2, to be the present petitioner had been given.

Under these circumstances, present petitioner could not be called to the court just on filing fard talwana giving details.

This petition is accepted. Complaint and the summoning order shall stand quashed.

December 15, 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.