Dismissed

Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2010CRM-M/14960/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a fresh inquiry due to the alleged omission of offences 452 and 427 IPC from the Police Report. The Court held that disputed factual issues concerning investigation cannot be entertained in such petitions and that the correct remedy is a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or claiming additional charges during trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking fresh inquiry dismissed as the Court cannot decide disputed questions of fact at this stage.

Ujjagar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M – 14960 of 2010(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

Crl. Misc. No. M – 14960 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- 20.5.2010

Ujjagar Singh

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Present:- Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Gurdev Singh, J (oral)

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been filed by Ujjagar Singh - petitioner for issuance of direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to conduct a fresh inquiry in FIR No. 207, dated 12.11.2009, registered under Sections 452, 325, 323, 506, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, as at the time of presentation of the Challan by the Investigating Officer, he has intentionally deleted the important Sections i.e. 452 and 427 IPC, without giving him any opportunity and with a malafide intention.

¶15

The facts are that the petitioner got lodged the above said FIR in which he narrated that on 6.11.2009 at about 9.30 PM, he was present in the house along with his wife Sinder Kaur when Mandeep Singh @ Manna and others jumped inside their house from the wall and came inside the house after opening the main gate. Jagdish Singh gave a blow with his hockey stick on his left wrist and then Bhajan Singh gave a blow with his dang on

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M – 14960 of 2010(O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

the backside of his left shoulder. The second blow was given by Jagdish Singh with his hockey stick on the left side of his head and Bhajan Singh gave a blow with his Daang on his left arm. Jagdish Singh gave two blows with his danda on her left shoulder and left leg. Inderjit Singh and Mandip Singh with the help of their weapons damaged the grill of his house and also damaged his motor-car bearing No. DL-3C3-7211. He also narrated therein the motive on the part of these accused for committing these offences. After the completion of investigation the police report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the trial Court, under Sections 323, 325, 506, 149 and 148 IPC. It was mentioned therein that after the investigation, it was found that no such offences under Section 452 and 427 were committed by the accused.

¶19

The grouse of the petitioner is that at the time of the inquiry, he himself and his family members were not called by respondent No.4. From the very beginning the attitude of the police was in favour of the accused and inspite of the fact the offences under Sections 452 and 427 IPC were made out from the evidence, but the same were deleted. He tried to contact respondent No.2 regarding mala fide action of respondent No.4, but all in vain.

¶20

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the photographs placed on the record, it is very much clear that his motor-car and grill of house were damaged and still offences under Section 452 and 427 IPC have been omitted, which shows mala fide on the part of the Investigating Officer.

¶21

It is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be entertained and

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M – 14960 of 2010(O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is seeking fresh inquiry. Only further investigation is permissible and they cannot claim re-investigation. If the petitioner had any grouse regarding the omission of the above said offences from the police report, he could have filed private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The filing of the challan by the police is not the final word. Ultimately the conviction or acquittal of the accused is to be recorded on the basis of the evidence to be produced in the Court. The complainant can, during the trial, come up with the prayer for framing of charge against the accused for the offences under Section 427 & 447 IPC, if those offences are prima facie made out against them.

¶25

There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

(Gurdev Singh) Judge

¶28

May 20, 2010 tripti

Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjagar Singh 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

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurmeet Singh @ Jeeta Vs State of Punjab

Shamsher Singh Dahiya Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Prodip Kumar Dutta Vs State of Punjab & Another

Rajinder Singh & Others Vs State of U.T., Chandigarh & Another

Gagan Verma Vs State of Punjab and Anr.