Allowed

Kuldeep Kumar Dogra v. Surinder Nath

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2010CRM-M/51850/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the impugned order framing a charge against the petitioner without recording pre-charge evidence in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, directing the trial court to record such evidence before framing the charge.

What did the court decide?

The order framing the charge was set aside; the trial court was directed to record pre-charge evidence before framing the charge.

Kuldeep Kumar Dogra Vs Surinder Nath — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M- 51850 of 2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.Misc. No. M-51850 of 2007 Date of Decision: December 07 , 2010

¶5

Kuldip Kumar Dogra

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surinder Nath

¶9

..........Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent

¶12

Sabina, J.

¶13

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short`Cr.P.C.') for quashing of criminal complaint dated 11.11.2002 (Annexure P1);summoning order dated 6.12.2006 (Annexure P5); order of charge dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure P6) and the charge sheet dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure P7).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, after recording of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the trial Court ordered that the petitioner be summoned to face the trial under Sections 197, 199,203,506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC'). Thereafter charge has been framed against the petitioner by the trial court vide order dated 27.8.2007 without recording any pre-charge evidence as envisaged under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Criminal Misc. No.M- 51850 of 2007

¶16

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly conceded that in the present case, the witnesses examined by the complainant were liable to be cross-examined by the petitioner before framing of the charge.

¶18

Section 244 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

¶19

“Evidence for prosecution.-(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

¶20

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.”

¶21

Thus, as per the above provision, in a warrant case, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution where the case has been instituted otherwise even on the police report.

¶22

In the present case, the complainant had filed the complaint against the petitioner and had led his preliminary evidence. On the basis of the same, the trial Court passed the summoning order dated 6.12.2005 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face the trial for an offence under Sections 197, 199, 203 and 506 IPC. Petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 13.11.2006. Thereafter, without recording any precharge evidence as envisaged under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the trial Court proceeded to frame the charge against the petitioner for an offence under Sections 197, 199, 203, 506 IPC vide order dated 27.8.2007. Since the trial Court has adopted the procedure of a warrant case, it was mandatory for

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M- 51850 of 2007

¶25

the trial Court to record the pre-charge evidence before framing the charge against the petitioner.

¶26

Accordingly, the impugned order whereby the charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner is set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the question of framing of the charge against the petitioner after recording the pre-charge evidence.

¶27

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.1.2011. The record of the trial Court be sent forthwith.

¶28

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

( Sabina ) Judge

¶30

December 07, 2010

¶31

arya

Kuldeep Kumar Dogra v. Surinder Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar Dogra v. Surinder Nath

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

Pushap Raj Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Pritam Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Angoori Devi Vs State of Punjab