Allowed

Pratap Singh Dhaliwal and Ors. v. Rajinder Singh Chadda

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2009CRMP/186/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the maintainability of a second criminal complaint filed on identical facts while the first case was pending. The court held it was abuse of process and quashed the second complaint.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Criminal Complaint Case No. 2016/2008 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur. Respondent ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

Pratap Singh Dhaliwal and Ors. Vs Rajinder Singh Chadda — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

UUI

¶2

SF CH-ATTISi

¶3

Cr.IV'.P.Nc-.ISe of 2009

¶4

;a^^;=;-^isg,te^^^^a.;!'

¶5

°ratap Sinah Dhaliwal S'o. not known sgsd sbout-54 y$2F5i R/lro. Police TrsinifiQ Schooi. Near Deiv Coiieae. indore (M.P.'i

¶6

Smt.i-iarwansh Kaur Dhaiiwal. aaed abo'it50S^ ,—.^..->ysars, VA?/^W/o.ShriC-L...: O,.—^-P('5tsp Singh^r>:. Dhssi'w'si, R/o.Poiice Trainina Schooi. Near Deiv coiiege, Indore (IVi.P.) Gurubachan Sinah'Grewa!. aaed a'oout-75 yssrs, S/o.-not kno'wri, R/o.TsiiOf' Mohals, Guna Kent. District-Guna (M.P.'i

¶7

A Smt.Bachan Kaur Grswat, aged sbout-68 yssrs, W/o Shfi Qufubschsn SiFigh Grsvysl, Tailor iViohaiia, Guna Kent, Dtetrict-Guna CiV!.P.) Parbinder Sinah Grewa!, aaed about-46 y$s?3, s?/o.i,?iin ijiuruDscnsn i^in^n ^rswsii ~ai!or Mohalla. Guna Kent. District-Guna

¶8

w.p) Smt.Jasbir kaur, aged about-40 vea.rs. D./o <?i»-; /"'•' •—• l»—^S-^i-s 0:.*«E» r<t—**.—i T^.:f.. OUil \3-UiUU«t't/)jiaii Oiiiyii ^i^tifCiJ, i ffHy! Mohaila, Guna Kent, District-Guna (Tiil.P.) and Po!ice Training Schcso!, Nssr Deiy Coliege; tndore ((Vi.P.)

¶9

Versus

¶10

RESPONDENT Rallnder Sinah Chadcia S/o iate Shri ^uruiif^>, ,—j:I. ^irign,C;—-*33DOUT.«,i-.~,,A / ~7-< 'i I..A.—"-. y^'srs; R/o.Nanak Nwas. DharsmDura Road, .. Jagda'pur, District-Bastsr(C.G.5

¶11

(Petition under sectlon 482 of the Cr.P.C.)

¶12

(SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.)

¶13

Present:

¶14

Mr. Sourabh Ds.nai, counsei forthe oetitioners.

¶15

Mr.M.L.Sskst, counssl forths rcspondis'nt.

¶16

(Passed on 11th Deces-raber, 2009)

¶17

T'nis 's a oetition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminai Proeediire. 1973 fin short 'the Code'') for auashment of the second comoiaint filed on behalf of the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Jagdaipur in ( Comolaln* Case No.201S/08.

¶18

^^y.;,^,»-"^ "^.
'N
? ^^^

¶19

^^ ''"''»; srefl^'

¶20

On 25.11,2009 on the basis of sta.tement ma-de bv counse! for the respondent Shri B.P.Sharma that parties had aareed to resoive their Rroblems and agrsed to withdraw ail the compla.ints Gases inciuding t'ne present complaint. t>iyo weeks time was arated, but instead of comDMna such statement, counsel for the "esoondent o'avs for tima.

¶21

3 i have heard learned counse! for the "etitjoners and porused the Detltion and documents aap<endsd thereto

¶22

ISs'SSSNito ' l":v'!s:'s^ r" ^^;''

¶23

.^s^

¶24

Lea.rned counset for the Detitloners subm.its that Drev/iousiv respondant has filed cornolaint before the Chlef Judicia! iVaglstrate, Jagda our bearina Criminai Complaint Case No 2828/2008 which was transferred to A^;$a Couri of Guna, State of Madhvs Pradesh bv the Aoex Court vide its t-ill

¶25

dated 7.7.2008 Dassed m Transfar Petition (Crl.) No.256 of 2007 which te sn Dendlncs before the Court of Guna. Learned counsei fi-irther su'omits durina Dendencv of first comDiaint, the resQondent has filed second complsint before ths.Chief Juo'icia) Magjstrste. JagdaJpur on the same facts Annexure P/6 bearina Criminal Comalaint Case No,20'!6/20Q8 and the aileaation of both the comolaints ars one and.ths same,

¶26

Qn Derusal, it is clear thst giieaation made m Criminat Comptaint Case No 2826/2008 which has besn transferred to the Court of Guna bv the order of the Aoex Court and alieaat'on made in Crimina! Comolsint No.2016/2008 are subsfiantiaiiy one and ths same and during pendency of first criiriinal case which Is pending before tha Court of Guna, second compialnt Is not msintainabie under the iaw and the same is abuse o' process of fhe Cou't. but the resoondent has conssajed the facts bafore th° Chief Jydicia! Msaistrate, JaadaiDur and has fiied the sscond comDiaint and succeeded for issuance of srocess aaainst ths Qetstioners.

¶27

6, Sacond comRiaint on the sa.me facts is not maintainabls and continuance of such cri'ninal Drocesding is gbuse of process of the Court. The pstitioners have been able to mske out an exceDtionsJ Gase for invokina sxtraordjnary 'nherent lurisdiction.

¶28

Consequent'y, the petition is atiowed, Crimina! Compla.int Case No,2016/2008 pe"ding bafore the Chief Judjcia! Magistrate, JabdalpU!" 's hereby quashed. 'he resQondsnt has fiied second comola'nt wlth sn uiterlor motive with a v[ew

¶29

to harsss the petitioners, therefor'e. respondsnt sha!! pay tha cost of Rs.5000/- to the Detitioners wjthin one month from today.

¶30

T. P. Sharma Judge

Pratap Singh Dhaliwal and Ors. v. Rajinder Singh Chadda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Singh Dhaliwal and Ors. v. Rajinder Singh Chadda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Munni Singh Vs Santosh Kumar Gupta

Om Prakash Jarora and Ors. Vs Ramesh Kumar Ahuja

Daulat Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs Naresh Sahu and Anr.

Narayan Ram Yadav and Anr. Vs Chatro Ram and Ors.

Ku.Amina Sheikh Vs Hiraman Verma and Anr.