Dismissed

Rajender @ Raju v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2011CRM-M/1749/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous application where the petitioner filed a false writ petition regarding alleged bonded labour detention. Finding the petitioner acted innocently without intent to abuse court process, the judge discharged the show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice issued to the petitioner was discharged; he was relieved of its consequences.

Rajender @ Raju Vs State of Haryana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1749 of 2011 (O&M)

Satinder

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana, for the respondent(s)-State.

¶14

¶15

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶16

Application sent by post to the Chief Justice of this Court was treated as a criminal writ petition and was listed on the judicial side.

¶17

Noticing that the persons mentioned in the application were detained at brick-kiln by Som Nath Gupta and Dheer Singh, report was sought from District Magistrate, Nawanshahar under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. On the next date of hearing, report of District Magistrate, Nawanshahar was submitted from which it transpired that neither the petitioner and the alleged detenues worked at the said brick-kiln nor they were detained. Even no person was found detained at the said brick-kiln. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against him for filing this false application.

¶18

Notice was issued to be served through concerned SHO

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1749 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶20

for effecting service on the petitioner. Even direction was issued to Senior Superintendent of Police, Nawanshahar. It was noticed that the petitioner was not being served and it revealed that petitioner was not traceable. Accordingly, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner which were directed to be served to him after making thorough search but the same remained unexecuted. Thereafter, on the request of Investigating Officer, the case was adjourned to ensure the service of petitioner through non-bailable warrants at his Uttar Pradesh address. Ultimately, the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were executed and the petitioner was produced before the Court on 28.02.2012. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail for which purpose, he was also directed to be produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahar.

¶21

Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, consented to appear as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court as notice was issued to the petitioner to respond to the show-cause-notice for filing petition falsely. Petitioner has now filed a detailed reply in response to this show cause notice. He has given a background in detail in the manner in which he borrowed money for marriage of his sister. The petitioner has also stated that earlier he worked at the brickkiln and the reason for which he happened to put his signatures on this application. The details disclosed in the reply would not make very pleasant reading.

¶22

The petitioner perhaps was ill advised to initiate and put his signatures on an application which was treated as a writ petition.

¶23

-3-

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1749 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

While doing so, he was further put to loss, as is disclosed in the reply. The petitioner had to borrow a sum of Rs.20,000/- at 5% interest which he paid to the advocate for filing this petition. The contents of the reply would indicate that the petitioner is an innocent victim of the circumstances where none has helped his cause. No doubt, he was unwise in associating himself in initiating a communication which was treated as a petition but thereafter he has been a victim of circumstances. The petitioner primarily seems to have done all this in innocence and unmindful of the consequences. Apparently, he had no intention to abuse the process of Court. The show cause notice issued to him is, therefore, discharged. The petitioner is relieved of the consequences of this show cause notice. If any action has followed at any stage, the same shall not have any effect hereafter.

¶26

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

May 09, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) mamta JUDGE

Rajender @ Raju v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajender @ Raju v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Punjab Vs Jit Singh and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Alias Goldy Vs State of Punjab

Kamla and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sarla Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kamla Vs State of Haryana and Ors.