Disposed

Pavittar Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2011CWP/10766/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to transfer investigation to CBI. Court disposed of petition as infructuous following fresh investigation and rejection of withdrawal application, without expressing views on merits, granting interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; interim protection granted; liberty to impugn order of refusal of withdrawal.

Pavittar Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10766 of 2004 Date of Decision : February 11, 2011.

¶3

Pavittar Singh and another

¶4

..... Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Addl.AG. Punjab.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶15

The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the State of Punjab and the police authorities to entrust the investigation of the case FIR No.159 dated 2.7.2004 registered at Police Station Kharar District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out impartial investigation into the matter.

¶16

It is stated by learned State counsel that during the pendency of this writ petition, a Special Investigating Team was constituted by the State Government who after investigating the matter has submitted a supplementary investigation report exonerating the petitioner of the allegations contained in the FIR and on the basis of said supplementary

¶17

C.W.P.No .10766 of 2004 2

¶18

investigation report, the public prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution, but the same has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar vide order dated 31.1.2011.

¶19

In view of the fact that the matter has been meanwhile investigated by the Special Investigating Team afresh, the prayer made in this writ petition has become substantially infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however, without expressing any views on the allegations and counter allegations, with liberty to the petitioners to impugn the order dated 31.1.2011, referred to above, before an appropriate forum, if so advised. The petitioners shall also be at liberty to raise the additional contentions, if any. It is further directed that the petitioners shall also be entitled and are granted the same interim protection as has been granted to the writ petitioners in C.W.P.No.10665 of 2004 (Kiranbir Singh Kang versus State of Punjab and others) vide orders dated

¶20

7.12.2004 and of the even date.

¶21

Ordered accordingly.

¶22

Dasti.

¶23

February 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Pavittar Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavittar Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Hari Mohan Dixit and Ors. Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court Chd. and Anr.

Avtar Singh Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Kiranbir Singh Kang Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharam Singh Kang and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Rajbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.