Dismissed

Ratna Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2011CRM-M/1161/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition to set aside an order dismissing a summons application was dismissed. The bench found no ground for interference given the stage of the case, the availability of original records, and the fact that the witness had not yet given a statement under Section 161 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned order dismissing the summons application was upheld.

Ratna Devi and Ors. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No.M-1161 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM No.M-1161 of 2010 Date of decision : 2.9.2011

¶6

Ratni Devi and others

¶7

........Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

......Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶12

Present:- Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶13

Mr.S.S.Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana

¶14

Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the private respondents No.2, 5, 6, 28 and 36

¶15

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) :

¶16

This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is directed against order dated 16.9.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, whereby application filed from the side of prosecution under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for summoning a Patwari has been dismissed.

¶17

Relevant discussion is contained in para 9 of the order wherein it has been considered that the Patwari was arrayed as a prosecution witness because copies of some revenue records were taken in police possession. Seizure memo in that regard has already been proved on record as Ex.PW1/F. De-hors the said fact, prosecution by way of an application wants to summon Jagpal Singh-the concerned Patwari , whose name finds mentioned at Serial No.17 of the List of witnesses.

¶18

It has, however, been found that the Patwari did not give his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as is

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRM No.M-1161 of 2010

¶21

evident from the final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case was lodged in the year 2000. The application has been made at the stage of recording statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶22

Revision was preferred against order passed by the Magistrate, as referred to above. The revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 24.11.2009 Annexure P-2.

¶23

In view of the stage of the case at which application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed; the fact that original document is already on record as an exhibit; the statement of witness under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has not been taken by the Investigating Officer; no ground for setting aside impugned order dated 16.9.2009 Annexure P-1 is made out.

¶24

In view of the facts noticed above, no ground for interference in this second revision petition, that has been termed as a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is made out.

¶25

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶26

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶27

2.9.2011 akm

Ratna Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratna Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Rajinder Singh Vs Gurmel Singh

Kamini Devi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Amarjit Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jasneet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parminder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.