Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shri Kesho Ram Gupta v. Chandigarh Administration - CRM-14815-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 2996 (8 May 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Criminal Misc. No. 14815/M of 2001.

Date of decision 17.5.2006.

Shri Kesho Ram Gupta vs. Chandigarh Administration Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Dr.Balram Gupta,Senior Advocate with Mr.Shreesh Gupta,Advocate,for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajiv Sharma,Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Kiran Anand Lall,J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal complaint, under Section 27 read with Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules framed thereunder (P5), filed against him (and three more) by the State through Drugs Inspector, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, the order dated 13.7.2000 (P7) vide which charge was framed against him, and the order dated 12.1.2001 (P8) vide which the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision filed by him and his co-accused against the order dated 13.7.2000.

Learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, points out that further proceedings having not been stayed by this court, the case is at the stage of defence evidence, before the trial court, now.

The fact that the case has completed its almost entire journey is, by itself, sufficient to dissuade this court from considering the question of quashing of complaint or the charge framed against the petitioner. The Apex Court, in State of Bihar and another vs. P.P.Sharma and another AIR 1991 S.C. 1260, has gone to the extent of holding that, even "at a stage when the police report under S.173 Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the investigating officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction".

In view of the above, no case for the quashing of complaint or the above referred to orders dated 13.7.2000 and 12.1.2001, is made out.

The petition shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.

17.5.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)

vs. Judge.


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


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 |

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