Petitioner sought quashing of an order granting prosecution evidence under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing the Section 311 application was filed by a stranger. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to challenge the earlier final order rejecting the locus standi objection.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-10105 of 2012 Date of Decision:4.4.2012
Jograj
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 14.2.2012 passed by Sh. Avtar Singh Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which the prosecution has been granted opportunity to lead prosecution evidence.
The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by Ravinder Singh, who is stranger to the dispute and has no right to file the said application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record order dated 11.8.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur. A perusal of the same shows that an application was earlier moved by said Ravinder Singh and the predecessor Court vide detailed order dated 8.12.2008 had rejected
CRM M-10105 of 2012
-2-
the objection raised by the accused that Ravinder Singh has no locus standi.
Order dated 11.8.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, is taken on record.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 8.12.2008. The said order having become final, the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that said Ravinder Singh has no locus standi.
No other infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Dismissed accordingly.
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
4.4.2012 rajeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the order granting prosecution evidence where the objection to the Section 311 application is barred by res judicata.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the objection to locus standi when they did not challenge the earlier final order on the same ground.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jograj
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
