Kuldip Singh v. Gurmail Singh and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought summoning of respondents for selling attached property. Court treated complaint as Section 340 application, set aside summoning order, and remanded inquiry to attachment court to determine if prosecutable offence exists.
What did the court decide?
Complaint and cancellation report treated as application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.; summoning order and revisional court order set aside; inquiry directed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-30642 of 2008
Date of decision: 16th April, 2009
Kuldip Singh
… Petitioner
Versus
Gurmail Singh and others
… Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 and 6.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed by Kuldip Singh. He is aggrieved that in the complaint filed by him, the trial Court had only issued summons against Karnial Singh and Bhag Singh.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether complaint and cancellation report regarding sale of attached property should be treated as application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Whether offence under Section 206 IPC bars direct cognizance due to Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Kuldip Singh
- respondent
Gurmail Singh
Coram
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRM-M/30642/2008
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court