Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHATWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chatwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CRM-6649-m-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 3008 (9 May 2006)

Crl. Misc. No.6649-M of 2004 - 1 -

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

Crl. Misc. No.6649-M of 2004

Date of decision: May 10, 2006.

Chatwinder Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

State of Punjab & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri K.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.S. Sewak, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

Shri G.S. Gill, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

In this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer to set aside an order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala whereby cancellation report submitted by the police in respect of FIR No.610 dated 4.12.2000, under section 341, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, has been accepted and respondents No.2 to 4 have been discharged.

The short ground upon which the afore-mentioned order is being challenged is that no effective opportunity to lodge protest against the cancellation report has been given to the petitioner.

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the zimni Crl. Misc. No.6649-M of 2004 - 2 -

orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 13.2.2003, 9.5.2003 as well as the subsequent orders dated 19.9.2003, 22.11.2003 as also the impugned order 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

It appears from these orders that an effort for compromise of the dispute between the parties, was made before the Lok Adalat and thereafter the case was transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate who issued notice to the petitioner-complainant for 22.11.2003. From the orders passed thereafter, it is apparent that the petitioner was never served, yet after recording that "notice to the complainant not received back inspite of sending notice number of times", the cancellation report was accepted.

The hasty manner in which the report has been accepted, runs contrary to the established procedure. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner-complainant is permitted to submit his protest petition, if any, within one month from today. Thereafter, fresh order shall be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law.

Disposed of.

May 10, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.