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


Kashmir Singh v. State of Punjab - CRM-27045.M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4659 (24 July 2006)

Crl.Misc.No.27045.M of 2006 ::1::

Kashmir Singh vs State of Punjab

Present : Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab.


Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is for setting aside the order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the application, filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C, praying for summoning/recalling the complainant-Nirvail Singh (PW6), for further cross-examination.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that during his examination-in-chief, DW1-Kulwinder Sindh, DSP(D), Jalandhar deposed that the complainant had filed an application, before the DIG, Jalandhar, naming four other individuals, as the petitioner's co-accused and, therefore, PW6-Nirvail Singh was required to be summoned for further cross- examination, with respect to the aforementioned individuals. It is further contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for recalling Nirvail Singh (PW6).

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. The persons, whose names are mentioned in the application, filed by the complainant, were neither challaned by the police nor were their names placed in column No.2 of the report, filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, no purpose would be served by recalling PW6-Nirvail Singh for further cross- examination.

Crl.Misc.No.27045.M of 2006 ::2::

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The petitioner is an accused in case FIR No.51, dated 21.9.2003, registered under Sections 302/148/149/307 of the IPC, at Police Station Talwandi Chaudhrian. During his examination-in-chief, Kulwinder Singh, DSP(D), Jalandhar deposed that the complainant filed an application, before the DIG, Jalandhar, naming four other individuals, as the petitioner's co-accused. This fact came into existence after the cross examination of Nirvail Singh had concluded and, therefore, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and could not have been put to Nirvail Singh, when he appeared as PW6. In view of the facts, noticed herein above, I am satisfied as to the bona fides and the relevance of the prayer, made in the application, under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure P- 3), passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala is set aside. The trial Court shall summon Nirvail Singh (PW6) for a date to be fixed by it, and grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine Nirvail Singh (PW6). It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to cross-examine Nirvail Singh (PW6), on the date so fixed, by the trial Court, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.


August 03, 2006. 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.