Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. - CRM-876-m-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3327 (22 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRL. MISC. NO. 876-M OF 2005 (O & M)

DATE OF DECISION: 22.5.2006

BALJIT SINGH

....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
PRESENT: MR. SANJIV GUPTA, ADVOCATE

FOR THE PETITIONER

MR. M.S. JOSHI, DAG, PUNJAB

JUDGMENT

This is a petition for quashing FIR No. 103 dated 22.11.2004 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha alongwith all subsequent proceedings based thereon.

The primary contention of the petitioner is that the dispute alleged in the FIR is primarily a civil dispute. Hence, recording of FIR against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. He has further contended that ingredients of Sections 406/420 IPC are totally missing from a bare perusal of the complaint or the FIR. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of S.W.

Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 572, Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma vs. State of Bihar 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 484 and this High Court in Manisha Goyal vs. State of Punjab 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 162, whereas on the other hand counsel for the State submits that charges in the present case have already been framed and the case is now fixed for evidence and it will not be appropriate at this stage to interfere in the petition seeking quashing of the FIR when the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of revision against the order imposing charges. The learned State counsel has also relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court of India in M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh and Anr. 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 406 in support of his contentions.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. There is no dispute so far as the interpretation of Sections 406/420 IPC which has been settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India or by this Court in earlier cases. In the present case, after the recording of the FIR, on investigation by the police, the case was found to be made out and on the basis thereof challan was presented in the Court and after considering the material on record, charges have been framed against the petitioner. Merely saying at this stage that no case is made out against the petitioner as per the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner, would not be correct. The petitioner has his remedies against the order framing charge, which the petitioner is at liberty to avail of.

In this view of the matter, I do not find this to be a fit case in which power under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be exercised to quash the FIR at this stage. The petitioner is further at liberty to raise all the pleas, taken herein, before the trial Court at appropriate stage.

Dismissed.

May 22, 2006 (RAJESH BINDAL)

gsv 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.