The High Court disposed of a Section 482 CrPC application where the petitioner sought directions to include documents in an investigation. The court dismissed the application, noting the investigation was incomplete and the petitioner had not shown the documents were ignored by the agency.
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.
(1)
Crl. Misc. No. M-38343 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-38343 of 2010 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 05.01.2011
Hanish Uppal
..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. ..........Respondents
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:Mr. K.S. Jetley, Advocate for the petitioner.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 67858 of 2010
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. 480 of 2011
This is an application for placing on record FIR bearing No. 504 dated 23.12.2010 registered under sections 409/420/467/468/471/120B IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana as Annexure P- 21 and also for exemption from filing certified/original copy of the same.
Application is allowed and Annexure P-21 is taken on record.
Crl. Misc. No. M-38343 of 2010
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner-Hanish Uppal for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 6 to take into consideration the documents annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1 to P-20 during the investigation of case FIR No. 462 dated 11.11.2010 registered under Sections 408/420/120-B IPC at
(2)
Crl. Misc. No. M-38343 of 2010 (O&M)
Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and he is not responsible for safe keeping of the travellers cheques, cash etc. of the branches under him, which remain under the control of Branch Manager and the Cashiers. Learned counsel also submits that the documents annexed with the petition are not being considered by the investigating agency.
I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and gone through the other documents available on record.
It is an admitted case that the investigation has not been concluded so far. Counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to show that these documents have not been considered by the investigating officer. There is no merit in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner.
Dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner may approach the investigating agency with regard to his grievance of keeping travellers cheques, cash etc.
January 05, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue directions to investigate agencies to consider specific documents during an ongoing investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hanish Uppal
State of Punjab
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
