In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court directed the concerned SSP to examine the pending cancellation report and take a final decision within one month, with liberty to request reinvestigation if the report is not accepted.
Direction to SSP to examine pending cancellation report and take final decision within one month.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-3814 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-3814 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23.02.2011
Harpreet Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to reinvestigate the matter in case FIR No.173 dated 12.06.2010 under Sections 353, 186 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Payal, Ludhiana and consequential proceedings arising thereof.
It is contended that during the course of investigation, the petitioner approached respondents No.2 and 3 to get the matter investigated properly. It is stated that the petitioner named all the accused persons in her statement during the investigation who entered the premises of the school and used vulgar language and misbehaved her on 24.12.2009. It is further stated that the petitioner named all the guilty persons mentioned in CWP No.1060 of 2010 but the police failed to incorporate their names during the course of investigation. The petitioner
2
Crl. Misc. No.M-3814 of 2011
also gave photographs, C.D and ample proof with respect to the role of the accused persons. In spite of the above, the respondents have prepared a cancellation report (Annexure P-5).
It is not disputed that the said cancellation report has not yet been submitted in the Court. As of date, it is not clear as to whether, the same has been approved or not.
In similar circumstances, the directions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported as 2008(2) Supreme Court Cases 409 are relevant, which are as under :-
“ 35. It has been stated in the impugned order of the High Court that GRP at Mathura had investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.08.2003. It is not clear whether this report was accepted by the Magistrate or not. If the report has been accepted by the Magistrate and no appeal/revision was filed against the order of the learned Magistrate accepting the police report, then that is the end of the matter. However, if the Magistrate has not yet passed any order on the police report, he may do so in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.”
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, where the cancellation report is stated to be pending to look into the same and take a final decision, if not already taken, within one month from today. In case, the cancellation report is not accepted, it is obvious that the same shall be sent for reinvestigation. However, in case, he comes to the conclusion that the cancellation report has to be submitted, then the same too, shall be submitted in accordance with law before the concerned Magistrate where the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the objections or file a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate and also request for
Crl. Misc. No.M-3814 of 2011
3
reinvestigation. The Magistrate shall, thereafter, decide the same in
accordance with law.
Disposed of as above.
23.02.2011 gurpreet
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct police to reinvestigate the matter incidental to the crime under Sections 353, 186 and 149 IPC.
Whether the pending cancellation report should be approved or sent for reinvestigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersReferred¶24
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported as 2008(2) Supreme Court Cases 409
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harpreet Kaur
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
