Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PANKAJ & RAJU versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pankaj & Raju v. State of Punjab - CRM-28232-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7297 (15 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.28232-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:12.9.2006

Pankaj & Raju ..........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. ..........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Shri N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.

****

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

for issuing directions to respondents No.1 and 2 for registration of a criminal case against respondents No. 3 to 9, on the basis of complaint, Annexure P-2.

Pursuant to the notice issued, reply on behalf of respondent- State has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

In this case, respondents No.3 to 9 are the relatives of the wife of the petitioner. Undisputedly, a complaint filed by the wife under Sections 406/498-A is pending before the Women Cell. In the reply, it has been stated that on the complaint, Annexure P-2, an inquiry was conducted by the DSP, in which, the allegations levelled by the petitioner were found to be false. Undisputedly, a dispute is going between the husband and wife, therefore, it appears that with an intention to implicate relations of the wife, the aforesaid complaint was filed. It has further been stated that already a case has been registered against the petitioner's father on the complaint made by respondent No.9.

Keeping in view all these facts, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent and discretionary powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to issue the directions sought for in this petition.

Dismissed.

However, it will be open for the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy.

September 12, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) pooja 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.