Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RANJIT SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ranjit Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab etc. - CRM-1502-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3468 (26 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.Rev.No.1502 of 2005

Date of decision : 4.7.2005

Ranjit Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS

State of Punjab etc. ......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present : Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms.Satpreet K. Grewal, Advocate.

ORDER :

Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 6.4.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dasuya, whereby the petitioners have been summoned, pursuant to a private complaint filed by private respondent.

The primary contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners are that on the same set of facts, an FIR was lodged by the police, pursuant to a complaint made by the complainant. After due investigation of the FIR, a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed and charges were framed against the petitioners, excluding petitioners no.7 and 8, who are minor school going children. It is also contended that the aforementioned facts were never disclosed to the Magistrate, before the passing of the summoning order. It is,therefore, prayed that the complaint and the summoning order be quashed.

Counsel for the private respondent on the other hand submits that there is no bar to the filing of a criminal complaint even where an FIR has been lodged. In view of the provisions of Section 210(2) of the Cr.P.C.

the trial in the FIR, as also the proceedings arising from the complaint have been clubbed, pursuant to an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dasuya dated 19.12.2005 and, therefore, in essence the grievance raised by the petitioners does not arise.

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

The mere registration of an FIR is no bar to the filing of a private complaint. However, as per the provisions of Section 210(2) of the Cr.P.C., if cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate, pursuant to a report filed by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after investigation of the FIR, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dasuya vide order dated 19.12.2005 has clubbed the two proceedings. Even otherwise, in so far as the merits,it involves disputed questions of facts adjudication whereof has to be left to the wisdom of the learned trial Court, for adjudication, pursuant to the evidence, to be led by the parties. In so far as the plea that petitioners no.7 and 8, were minors on the date of occurrence and were found to be innocent by the police, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise these pleas before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. The exemption from personal appearance granted to petitioners no.7 and 8 vide order dated 19.8.2005 is made absolute and shall subsist during the trial.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

4.7.2006 ( RAJIVE BHALLA )

GS 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.