High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab. - CRM-23935-m-2005  RD-P&H 2385 (18 April 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Nirmal Singh Versus State of Punjab.
Before Hon'ble Mr.Justice Baldev Singh.
Present: Mr.Parvesh Saini, Advocate, for Mr.G.C. Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Gur Partap Singh Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Baldev Singh, J.
Nirmal Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to register criminal case against respondent No.3 Surinder Singh son of Singara Singh, resident of House No.22, Gali No.6, Anand Nagar-B, Tripri, Patiala.
It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a Carpenter by profession. On 7.12.2004 at about 7 P.M, he was going to the market on his Scooter No.PD-11-1856. When he reached the Police Lines, a Maruti Car No.PB-11-U-255 hit his scooter. It was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3 Surinder Singh. As a result of the accident, the Criminal Miscellaneous No.23935-M of 2005.
petitioner suffered multiple fractures in his leg. He was operated and plates were fixed with nuts in the upper portion of his leg.
He is not in a position to walk properly. Respondent No.3 Surinder Singh is a Police Constable. He was posted as Gunman to Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time. The petitioner approached the police for registration of a criminal case against Surindedr Singh (respondent No.3), but in vain. Then he moved representations (Annexures P-1 to P-5) to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Human Rights Commission, Advocate General, Punjab, Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range. Still, no action was taken against Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) and no case was was registered against him. Then this petition was filed.
Notice of motion was issued to respondents Nos.1 and 2 through the Advocate General, Punjab. They filed reply.
Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in their reply have submitted that as per report of the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala, who enquired into the matter on the direction of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, on the day of occurrence respondent No.3 Surinder Singh was attached as a Constable/Gunman to Shamsher Singh Boparai, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Shamsher Singh Boparai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, had reached the place of occurrence and he had taken Nirmal Singh (petitioner) to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in the same car and had got him admitted there. He paid Rs.6,000/- to the doctors for medicines and treatment of the petitioner. Shamsher Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Criminal Miscellaneous No.23935-M of 2005.
thereafter also visited the hospital to enquire about the condition of the petitioner and had spent Rs.10,000/- more on his treatment. As per report of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala, the accident was sudden and no one was at fault. It was admitted that the petitioner had approached the police with written complaint. The same was enquired into. No offence was made out. Hence, no F.I.R was registered.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and of the Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State, were heard.
The accident of Car No.PB-11-U-255 with the scooter of the petitioner No.PD-11-1856 is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) was driving the car, which collided with the scooter of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that Surinder Singh(respondent No.3) was driving it rashly and negligently and his leg was fractured in this accident. Said Surinder Singh was a Police Constable and was attached as a Gunman to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. So, no criminal case was registered against him. It is an admitted fact that the written complaint of the petitioner was received by the police. An enquiry is said to have been conducted and no offence was allegedly made out. Enquiry should have been conducted subsequently. First, the criminal case should have been registered against Surinder Singh (respondent No.3), on the complaint of Nirmal Singh (petitioner) under the relevant provisions of law, such as Sections 279/ 337/ 338 of the Indian Penal Code. If after enquiry, no such offences were made out, then F.I.R could be got Criminal Miscellaneous No.23935-M of 2005.
cancelled. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, with whom the offender was attached as a Gunman, had reached the place of occurrence and had taken the petitioner to hospital. He allegedly spent Rs.6,000/- and also Rs.10,000/- on his treatment, but this is no consolation to the petitioner. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, is directed to get a criminal case registered against respondent No.3 Surinder Singh son of Singara Singh, resident of House No.22, Gali No.6, Anand Nagar-B, Tripri, Patiala for accident caused by him on 7.12.2004 at about 7 P.M in the area of Police Lines, Patiala, while driving Maruti Car No.PB-11-U-255 rashly and negligently under the relevant provisions of law, such as Sections 279/ 337/ 338 of the Indian Penal Code, as per allegations contained in the representations of the petitioner (Annexures P-1 to P-5), which were ignored, and then to proceed against him in accordance with law.
April 27, 2006. ( BALDEV SINGH )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.