Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAWAN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pawan Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Ors - CRM-71390-m-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3265 (18 May 2006)

Crl.Misc.71390-M of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

Criminal Misc. No.71390-M of 2005

Date of decision: May 10,2006

Pawan Kumar V. The State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Vikram Punia,Advocate, for the petitioners.

Shri Dinesh Arora,Assistant Advocate General,Haryana.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that order dated August 22,2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate had been set aside was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has argued that the only remedy of the accused against the summoning order was to approach this court by way of a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support o the aforesaid contention ,learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad V. Rooplal Jindal 2004(4)R.C.R.(Criminal)1.

I have duly considered the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel and have also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

In my considered view, the argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted .In Adalat Prasad's case (supra), the Apex Court had merely held that when a summoning order has been passed by the Magistrate, though the Magistrate had no power of review to recall the said summoning order and the only remedy of the accused was to challenge the said order by way a petition under section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, the Crl.Misc.71390-M of 2005 2

earlier view taken in K.M.Mathew V.State of Kerala 1992(1) RCR (Criminal)232 was over-ruled. However, at no point of time, the Apex Court had held that the review against the summoning order was not maintainable.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I do not find that the order dated August 22,2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from any error of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

May 10, 2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks 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.