Disposed

Chetak Singh @ Chintu v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012CRM-M/11818/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition to prevent harassment via ongoing investigation. The Court noted that a prior order had dismissed the prosecution's application to investigate the petitioner, rendering the petition infructuous, and disposed of the matter accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The petition was held infuctuous due to the final dismissal of the prosecution's application for investigation and was disposed of.

Chetak Singh @ Chintu Vs State of Haryana… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-11818 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:2.2.2012

¶3

Chetak Singh @ Chintu

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the respondents not to harass and humiliate the petitioner in case FIR No.253 dated 11.11.2009 under Sections 363/366/120-B/323/376/212 IPC Police Station Chandhat, District Palwal.

¶16

On 25.4.2011 while issuing notice of motion, following order was passed:

¶17

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was registered on 11.11.2009 and the petitioner was found innocent. Thereafter, the challan was filed against other accused but no challan was filed against the present petitioner. It was further

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM M-11818 of 2011

¶20

contended that without any specific order of the Court to further investigate, the Investigating Agency is still issuing notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.”

¶21

Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 27.5.2011 and on that date following order was passed:

¶22

“Contends that the applicant-petitioner was found innocent. No challan had been filed against him. It is further stated that even the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. moved by the PP has been withdrawn. In spite of that, the Investigating Agency has sought non-bailable warrants against him which have been issued by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal on 16.5.2011.

¶23

However, in view of the above facts, the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal is stayed subject to the petitioner's appearing before the Court on or before the next date of hearing and filing his application for bail. In case, the applicant-petitioner surrenders before the trial Court on the said date and files his application for bail, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶24

Notice in the application for 13.7.2011.”

¶25

Today learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record certified copy of the order dated 30.11.2011 vide which the application moved by the prosecution to investigate the petitioner

¶26

-3-

¶27

CRM M-11818 of 2011

¶28

was dismissed. The operative part of the said order reads as under:

¶29

“In the above stated factual matrix, this Court is having a view that the accused Chintu @ Chetak has already been found innocent in the investigation made by the police in the criminal case bearing no.253 dated 11.11.09 under Sections 363/366/323/376/212/120-B IPC Police Station Chandhut and therefore, Inspector Bijender Singh, State Crime Branch has no authority to make the further investigation into this case and to proceed against the accused Chintu @ Chetak without seeking the permission of the competent court of law. If the State Crime branch makes further investigation or re-investigation into this case at this stage then this Court is having a view that there would have been no end to the investigation and the police will gain unlimited power to harass any of the accused during the such further investigation who has already been found innocent in that criminal case. Hence, the application for joining the accused Chintu @ Chetak in the investigation of the criminal case bearing FIR No.253 dated 11.11.2009 P.S. Chandhut is hereby dismissed.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from

¶31

Inspector Bijender Singh, State Crime Branch, who is present in the Court in person, does not dispute the above fact. It is not disputed that the application to investigate the petitioner was dismissed. It is

¶32

-4-

¶33

CRM M-11818 of 2011

¶34

further stated by the learned counsel for the State on instructions from Inspector Bijender Singh, State Crime Branch that no revision has been filed by the prosecution against the said order. Thus, order dated 30.11.2011 has become final.

¶35

Inspector Bijender Singh, State Crime Branch, who is present in the Court, states that the petitioner is not required for investigation in the said case and he will not harass the petitioner any more in the said case.

¶36

In view of the above, the present petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

¶37

2.2.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE

Chetak Singh @ Chintu v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetak Singh @ Chintu v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Chandan Arora and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharambir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Golu Singh & Ors,. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Seema Rathour Gill

Sunita Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vakil and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.