Petitioner sought direction to arrest respondent No.5 in an IPC 420 case. Court noted she was already arrested and charge-sheet filed. Held arrest direction unnecessary and disposed petition.
Disappointed in direction to arrest respondent No.5.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No. M-17988 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.11.2011.
Darshan Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, direction to respondent No.1 to 3 to arrest respondent No.5 in case bearing First Information Report No.44 dated June 25th , 2008 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Rangar Nangal, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, is sought.
Learned State counsel has stated that Sukhjeevan Kaur-respondent No.5 along with her co-accused Harpal Singh has been arrested. Charge-sheet/challan has been filed against them in the court of Area Magistrate, Batala.
In view of this, no direction is required to be issued.
Disposed of accordingly.
(NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE
29.11.2011 Ishwar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction to arrest a co-accused in IPC 420 case is required when she and charge-sheet are already filed and in custody.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Darshan Singh
State of Punjab
Sukhjeevan Kaur
Nawab Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
