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


Sarabjit Singh @ Sabba and Ors. v. State of Punjab - CRM-62-M-2002 [2007] RD-P&H 742 (22 January 2007)


Crl. Misc. No. 62-M of 2002

Date of decision: 29.01.2007

Sarabjit Singh @ Sabba and ors.

..... Petitioners.


State of Punjab

..... Respondent.

Present:- Mrs. Baljit K. Mann, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Baath, AAG Punjab

Surya Kant, J. (ORAL)

This petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr whereby he refused to accept the supplementary challan under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure presented by the police before framing of the charges.

As per the allegations, the complainant along with his wife and minor children was going on a Scooter on 13.02.2000 when he was allegedly hit by a Tempo coming from behind. On 15.03.2000 i.e. after a period of more than one month of the alleged occurrence, the complainant made a complaint that he was hit from behind by the Tempo driver, who in conspiracy with the complaint's real brother, his wife and other close relatives, intended to commit the complainant's murder.

Crl. Misc. No. 62-M of 2002 --2--

Challan was presented by the police on 27.11.2000. However, before the charges could be framed, the petitioners, who are brother and other relatives of the complainant, moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nawanshahr upon which, further investigation was directed and is stated to have been carried out by Superintendent of Police (D), Nawanshahr. Thereafter, the police submitted a cancellation report under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter-alia, concluding that in the absence of any medical report, no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr has declined to accept the aforesaid cancellation report after observing that further investigation could be carried out by the police only if some new facts or circumstances were brought to its notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 463; and (ii) Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 836 and contends that the police was competent to conduct further investigation even after the Court had taken cognizance of the offence. It is also contended that though in such like situation, it is desirable to seek permission of the court, however it is not obligatory for the police to hold further investigation only after getting prior permission from the Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioners instead of moving an application to the S.S.P., ought to have approached the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Crl. Misc. No. 62-M of 2002 --3--

Nawanshahr to make out a case that in the absence of medical report or any other evidence, no case under Section 307 IPC was made out against them.

In that event, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr would have considered the desirability of further investigation, and if so required, would have directed the Investigating Officer of the case to submit a supplementary report under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. Once the court is seized with the matter, the police cannot run parallel and/ or pre- emptory proceedings, without even bringing to the notice of the Court.

At the same time the impugned order dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr to the effect that no further investigation could be carried out unless some new facts were brought on record, appears to be mis-directed. If on consideration of the charge-sheet presented before it, the Court finds that some vital issue or material has remained over looked or omitted, nothing prevents the court from seeking further investigation in the case.

For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 10.12.2001 is set aside and the petitioners are relegated to the Ld. trial Court with liberty to move an appropriate application along with copy of the 2nd

police report and, thereafter, it will be for the Ld. Trial Court to re- consider the whole issue in the light of both the reports and to decide as to whether charges are to be framed or further investigation would be necessitated in the matter. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 12.03.2007.

Disposed of.

January 29 , 2007 ( Surya Kant )

dinesh 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.