Dismissed

Narain Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2011CRM-M/6843/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order as it was devoid of merit. The Court held that since a petition on the same cause of action was previously dismissed, the present petition was an impermissible second attempt, absent any fresh cause of action, new evidence, or changed circumstances. The power to interfere under Section 482 was found

What did the court decide?

The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order was dismissed as it was an impermissible second attempt without new material or changed circumstances.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc. No. M- 6843 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: 23.03.2011

Narain Singh

......Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Chaudhary Kundal Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Crl.Misc.No. 12440 of 2011

¶14

Crl.Misc.is allowed as prayed for.

¶15

Crl.Misc.No. M-6843 of 2011

¶16

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Narain Singh @ Kalu for quashing of summoning order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in Sessions Case No.208/2007 dated 4.12.2007 arising out of FIR No.212 dated 10.9.2007 registered under Sections 302/307/323/324/148/149 IPC at Police Station Sujanpur.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no cogent material on record to summon the petitioner as additional accused and while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial Court had to see whether on the basis of available evidence on

¶18

Crl.Misc. No. M- 6843 of 2011 [2]

¶19

the record, the petitioner can be summoned as an additional accused or not. No material was there with the trial Court to summon the petitioner as an additional accused.

¶20

Admittedly, the petitioner filed Crl. Revision No. 3013 of 2010 vide which order dated 29th October, 2010 was challenged and after arguing the case, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Since the same summoning order dated 29th October, 2010 has been challenged and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain how the second petition against the same impugned order is maintainable. Earlier petition was also filed on the same cause of action and now there is no fresh cause of action or evidence is there to challenge the said impugned order. Moreover, nothing has been placed on record with regard to changed circumstances or new evidence.

¶21

Since the earlier petition on the same cause of action has already been dismissed on 22nd November, 2010, no ground is made to interfere with the impugned order. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

¶22

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶23

March 23, 2011 raghav

Narain Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narain Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harvinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sham Singh Vs Anil Kumar & Ors.

Baldev Singh Rattan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vijay Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Anr.