Allowed

Bikramjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2008CRM-M/18852/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. Misc. M-18852 of 2008 petitioned for quashing of an inquiry notice to complainants in an IPC criminal case where the investigation was completed, charges framed, and trial completed. The SSP affidavit confirmed no objection to quashing the notice as no further inquiry was needed.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) to remain present for inquiry was set aside.

Bikramjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-18852 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-18852 of 2008

¶5

DATE OF DECISION:12.11.2008

¶6

Bikramjit Singh and another

¶7

..........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab & others

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY,J.

¶16

The present petition has been filed for quashing of notice dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioners have been ordered to remain present in connection with the inquiry of the complaint given by one Joginder Kaur Sandhu in case FIR No. 83 dated 4.5.2005 under Sections 452,447,448, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana.

¶17

Mr. Sunil Chanda, learned counsel for petitioners argued that the petitioners are complainant in the abovesaid FIR and the investigation has already been completed and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court. Charges have been framed and witnesses are being examined and moreover the investigating agency has no role to play during trial. Mr. Chadha further argues that petitioners have wrongly been summoned at the behest of one of the accused, which is not permissible under law and second inquiry in respect of same FIR is not

¶18

(2)

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-18852 of 2008 maintainable.

¶20

In compliance of order dated 6.8.2008, SSP, Rupnagar filed the affidavit and the same is on record. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned by Shr. R.N. Dhoke, SSP, Rupnagar that his predecessor had called the petitioners to join inquiry and now it has been decided not to call them in any inquiry relating to aforesaid FIR, as the challan has already been presented before the trial Court and he has no objection if notice dated 23.7.2008 is quashed.

¶21

I have heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and also perused the affidavit filed by the SSP, Rupnagar.

¶22

After going through the affidavit dated 9.9.2008, nothing survives in this petition and the same is allowed and notice dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) is set aside.

¶23

Before parting with this order, I would like to point out that SSP, Rupnagar has signed the present affidavit without going through the contents and language of the same, which is totally contrary to the prayer made therein. Mr. R.N. Dhoke, SSP, Rupnanagar, in the preliminary submissions of the affidavit/reply has mentioned that the present petition is an abuse of process of law and further to make obstructions in the fair police investigation/inquiry being conducted in the said FIR, whereas, in the end of affidavit/reply, he has mentioned that impugned notice dated 23.7.2008 qua the aforesaid FIR may be quashed.

¶24

Mr. R.N. Dhoke, SSP, Rupnagar, is directed to remain careful

¶25

in future in signing written statement/affidavit to be filed in Court cases.

¶26

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶27

November 12, 2008 pooja

¶28

Crl. Misc. No. M-18852 of 2008 (3)

Bikramjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikramjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Pb. etc.

Kartar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Raj Mal Vs State of Haryana

Rajinder Vs Karambir Singh and Ors.

Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Patasho Devi and Others Vs Bakshish Singh and Others