Disposed

Paramjit Singh Duggal @ Bittu and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2011CRM-M/8375/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a direction for Special Public Prosecutor to examine complaints from both sides in a criminal dispute jointly before passing a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Special team formed by respondent No.2 to look into complaint (Annexure P-8) along with allegations already looked into by SIT and pass speaking order.

Paramjit Singh Duggal @ Bittu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-8375 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-8375 of 2011 Date of Decision: 17.03.2011

¶5

Paramjit Singh Duggal @ Bittu and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶11

Present:Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶16

¶17

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶18

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to register a case against respondents No.6 to 18 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the representation of petitioners with a further prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to act as per legal opinion given by D.A. Legal, Ludhiana for acting on the enquiry report of Gursharan Singh Bedi, SP (HQ), Khanna in stead of constituting another team to enquire into the matter again.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 has constituted a team of Shri Jaspreet Singh Sidhu SP(HQ), Fatehgarh Sahib, Shri Raminder Singh DSP Khanna and Shri Bakhshish Singh DSP (D) Jagraon to again look into allegations of both the sides.

¶20

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-8375 of 2011

¶22

However, the present petitiones will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to look into the complaint (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners along with the complaint of other side.

¶23

In view of the short and fair prayer as above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that Special team now formed by respondent No.2 shall also look into the complaint (Annexure P-8) along with the allegation already being looked into by the SIT and pass a speaking order while taking a final decision qua the allegations levelled by both the sides against each other.

¶24

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶25

17.03.2011 gurpreet

Paramjit Singh Duggal @ Bittu and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh Duggal @ Bittu and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Mandeep Singh and Ors.

Davinder Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Seema Vs Bimla Malik and Ors.

Mandeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Meenu & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kavita & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.