Dismissed

Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2011CRM-M/25479/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to conclude proceedings under an old FIR where a cancellation report was pending. The report was submitted after the petition, rendering the matter infructuous, leading to dismissal. The court later vacated costs against an official due to an apology.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to subsequent submission of cancellation report.

Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-25479 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-25479 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 20-09-2011

Gurdip Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Sr.DAG, Punjab

¶12

Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶14

On 7.7.2011 Sh.Teji has stated on instructions from ASI Parminder Singh that cancellation report has been submitted in December, 2007 which fact has been found to be incorrect as it has been stated on instructions from the same very officer that the cancellation report has now been submitted on 19.9.2011. The prayer made in the instant petition was for issuance of directions to the official respondents to proceed with the FIR no.171 dated 28.9.2007 registered under Sections 452, 380, 429 IPC at P.S Raikot, District Ludhiana to take the proceedings to its logical end.

¶15

It is evident that the cancellation report has been prepared but has been submitted now because of the petition being filed by the petitioner.

¶16

Since the cancellation report has been submitted this has substantially addressed the grievance of the petitioner rendering the instant petition infructuous.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-25479 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶18

The petition is thus disposed of as such.

¶19

However, the Court notices the fact that a mis-representation of facts has been made before this Court when it was projected before it on 7.7.2011 that the cancellation report has already been submitted in December 2007 which fact has been found to be incorrect as the same has now been submitted on 19.9.2011. The Court views this lapse seriously as it is apparent that ASI Parminder Singh has tried to mislead the Court. He is thus burdened with costs of Rs. 25,000/- for the lapse that he has committed which shall be recovered from his pay.

¶20

The petitioner shall be at liberty to take an appropriate remedy against the submission of cancellation report.

¶21

At this stage, concerned official who is present in the Court expresses his regrets for the wrong communication that he had made before this Court.

¶22

The apology is accepted and as a consequence thereof the earlier part of the order imposing costs upon the said official is expunged.

¶23

September 20, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Jagdip Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Satya Narayan & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Jai Singh & Others Vs State of Haryana

M/S Dimple Audio Video P. Ltd. Vs Tejinder Pal Singh

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Baldev Raj Vs State of Haryana and Ors.