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


Narinder Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr - CRM-46919-M-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 4581 (21 July 2006)


Crl.Misc.No.46919-M of 2004

Narinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and another Present : None.

Prayer in this petition is, for quashing of the complaint dated 14.6.2003, and the summoning order dated 31.3.2004, pursuant whereto, the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial, for offences under Sections 452,354,323,540 and 546 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. The situation was no different on 5.12.2005, 10.5.2006 and 12.7.2006. On 12.7.2006, the registry was directed, to inform counsel for the petitioners of the date fixed. Despite the aforementioned, counsel for the petitioners has not put in appearance.

I have perused the paper book, the impugned complaint and the summoning order. It is pleaded that the complaint is a counter blast to a complaint as well as to the criminal proceedings pending against respondent no.2 and her family members. An FIR was registered against respondent no.2, Gopal Krishan, his father Nihal Chand, his mother Vidya and his brothers Harish and Subhash. It is further pleaded that the incident referred to in the complaint, allegedly occurred on 5.4.2003, whereas the complaint was filed on 14.6.2003. Petitioner no.2 being a handicapped person, unable to stand without the assistance of another, could not have possibly kicked and slapped anyone as narrated in the complaint. A perusal of the facts does not constitute an offence under Section 452 Cr.P.C. The allegations are vague, general in nature and, therefore, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings be quashed.

A perusal of the complaint and the summoning order, in my considered opinion, does not bear out the contentions pleaded. The learned Magistrate, after a perusal of the complaint and the evidence adduced, directed the summoning of the petitioners. The contentions raised in the petition are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and are best left to the wisdom of the trial Court, to be decided on the basis of evidence, to be adduced before it.

The summoning order does not suffer from any illegality, error of jurisdiction or perversity, as would warrant interference.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

19.7.2006 ( RAJIVE BHALLA )



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.