In this criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against orders declining to proceed against additional accused upon recording statements under Section 319 Cr.P.C., finding no grounds for interference. No further appeal was allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRL.M.No.69431-M of 2006
DATE OF ORDER:9.11.2006
CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL
...*.
Present: Mr. Gotam Dutt, Advocate.
M.M. AGGARWAL,J
This is petition against order dated 19.4.2004 passed by JMIC, Rohtak and also against order dated 5.10.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C of the complainant-petitioner for proceeding against Ved Parkash and Om Parkash had been declined.
Case is for the offence under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC. Police in this case, had challaned four accused. During the course of trial, statements of Mohinder, Kaptan and Raj Bala were recorded and then application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was made, which was dismissed by the Magistrate. Petitioner had filed revision petition against the order of the Magistrate, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. No further revision shall be maintainable.
I do not find any good ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
November 09, 2006 ( M.M. AGGARWAL ) manoj JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge should interfere with the dismissal of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. declining to proceed against additional accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohinder
Ved Parkash
Om Parkash
M.M. Aggarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
