Allowed

Dhoop Dass & Anr. v. Jagdish Chander & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Oct 2010CRM-M/25248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application prayed for a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide pending proceedings under Section 145/146 of Cr.P.C. citing nearly two years of delay despite a 2008 high court order. The court directed disposal within two months of file receipt. Thin one-paragraph order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SDM Hisar to dispose of Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. proceedings within 2 months of receiving file from AJ.

Dhoop Dass & Anr. Vs Jagdish Chander & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. M. No.25248-M of 2010 Date of Decision:7.10.2010

¶3

Dhoop Dass and another

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jagdish Chander and others

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG Haryana.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The short prayer made in the present petition is for issuance of direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Hisar i.e. respondent No.7 to decide the proceedings under Section 145/146 of Cr.P.C. within some stipulated reasonable time period, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶16

It is stated that on 11.12.2008, Hon'ble the Single Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

¶17

“Let the SDM, Hisar re-consider the entire issue in regard to the Calendra filed by the police and pass an order afresh after hearing the parties. The parties would be at liberty to raise all the pleas that are available to them under law and facts. Party left with any grievance would be at liberty to challenge the order passed in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SDM

¶18

Crl. M. No.25248-M of 2010 -2-

¶19

on 24.12.2008. The SDM may make endeavor to decide the case pending before him within a period of six weeks.”

¶20

However, almost 1 year and 8 months have passed, the matter has still not been decided. Thereafter, various orders have been passed from wherein it is evident that the delay was being caused by the first party. Subsequently, an application was moved by the first party and the same was kept for consideration and the matter is being adjourned on one pretext or other and now the file has been summoned by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

¶21

However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the above submissions that the delay was caused by them.

¶22

One thing is certain that the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the High Court has not been complied with.

¶23

Accordingly, without going into the said dispute the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hisar, is directed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 145/146 of Cr.P.C within 2 months from the receipt of the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, is further directed to send back the file as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶25

7.10.2010 rajeev

Dhoop Dass & Anr. v. Jagdish Chander & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhoop Dass & Anr. v. Jagdish Chander & 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

Shivraj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bachittar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhpal Singh Vs State of Punjab