Petitioner sought direction to register FIR for forgery. Court held that since the magistrate had already taken cognizance and directed police report submission, it would not interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. -M No. 10420 of 2010
(1)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. -M No. 10420 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.11.2011
Dr. Sumeet Sofat
.. Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. T. P. S. Teji, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 to 7.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for directing the official respondents to register FIR against the private respondents and investigate the matter under Sections 379, 201, 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially on account of a forgery committed by Ramesh Kumar Pashan, Simmy Pashan, Abhinav Pashan and Dinayak Pashan, no action was taken by the police. The petitioner approached this court by filing CRM -M No. 4518 of 2008 Dr. Sumeet Sofat vs State of Punjab and others. The same was disposed of by this court on 16.5.2008 observing that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner, thereafter, filed complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate. In pursuance to the order passed therein, FIR No. 176 was registered under Sections 465, 471, 120-B IPC. During the course of investigation in the FIR, forged jamabandis for the year 2002-03 were removed from the file by the accused in connivance with the police officials. For investigation into that offence, the petitioner had filed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana on 2.9.2008 and subsequently before the court. The court had
Criminal Misc. -M No. 10420 of 2010
(2)
taken cognisance of the complaint filed by the petitioner and vide order dated 29.9.2008, while issuing notice had directed the police to submit a report on 15.11.2008. The present petition has been filed in this court on 31.3.2010, however, subsequent developments after passing of the aforesaid order dated 29.9.2008 by the learned Magistrate were not placed on record.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Joginder Singh, submitted that the police had prepared a report thereon on 26.10.2008 to submit in the court. It was submitted in the court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering that once the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and the cognisance thereon had been taken by him, this court would not like to interfere in the present petition seeking the same relief. However, in case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the learned court below, he can avail of his remedy against that order in accordance with law.
Disposed of.
29.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge
Dr. Sumeet Sofat
State of Punjab
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
