Quashed

Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar @ Sheela v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2009CRM-M/14141/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order against the petitioner. The court found the petitioner falsely implicated by insufficiency of allegations and probable mala fide motives, noting the relationship between parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint and summoning order against petitioner Sushil Kumar are quashed; proceedings against other accused to continue.

Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar @ Sheela Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

-.-

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M- 14141 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 22.5.2009

Sushil Kumar

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶8

.... Respondents.

¶9

Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.S.Sidhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab. Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral)

¶12

Petitioner seeks the quashing of summoning order Annexure P-2 and criminal complaint Annexure P-1 Balwinder Singh Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors., qua him on the ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case after he having been found innocent by the police in FIRNo. 87 dated 21.6.2006, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 and 120-B IPC. A perusal of the FIR registered at the instance of Balwinder Kumar complainant reveals that no overt act had been attributed to him in the inncident of 19.6.2006 when Balwinder Kumar was allegedly attacked by three unidentified persons. The complainant had sought a direction from the High Court by filing the criminal miscellaneous application No. 59492 – M of 2006 seeking a direction to the police to present a challan against the petitioner and others. In the petition also no specific over act has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention in the allegations of private complaint Annexure P-1 in which for the first time after cancellation of FIR name of the petitioner, to have attacked the

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M- 14141 of 2008

¶15

-2-

¶16

complainant has been mentioned. No other specific act has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶17

In view of said facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has been involved in the case on account of vindictiveness. The petitioner happens to be the husband of present sarpanch whereas the complainant is admittedly son of Ex-sarpanch. The facts of the present case appear to fall in parameters of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors ., AIR 1992 SC 604, which on the face of it are improbable suffering from the voice of mala fide. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

¶18

In view of above circumstances, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint and the summoning order against the petitioner Sushil Kumar are quashed. Nothing said in this order will effect the rights of the complainant in the pending complaint. Proceedings against the other accused can continue in accordance with law.

¶19

(M.M.S.Bedi) Judge

¶20

May 22, 2009 tripti

Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar @ Sheela v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar @ Sheela v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joga Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surender Pahalwan Alias Surender Kumar Vs the State of Haryana

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurbachan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab