Dismissed

Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2012CRM-M/12552/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court held no fault with the order as the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and attributed a specific role, and the re-arrest efforts were directed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; prosecution directed to file status report on re-arrest efforts.

Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-12552 of 2010 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-12552 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision : 08.08.2012

Harbhajan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶14

The challenge is to the order dated 23.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar (Annexure P-7) vide which the petitioner Harbhajan Singh was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

The summoning Court has categorically recorded that Harbhajan Singh is specifically named in the FIR. He was armed with stick. The complainant, Joga Singh, has specifically deposed that Harbhajan Singh armed with stick, gave beatings to the deceased, Paramjit Singh. Considering the statement of complainant Jora Singh,

¶17

CRM No.M-12552 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶18

recorded in the Court and that of other PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to the injury caused to the deceased, Paramjit Singh by Harbhajan Singh, the petitioner was summoned. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was summoned on the mere repetition of the allegations in the FIR without cross-examination of the witnesses.

¶19

The petitioner is named in the FIR and has been attributed specific role, therefore, no fault can be found with the view taken by the summoning Court. During the interregnum period, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 22.10.2005. The trial qua the other accused stands concluded and Amar Singh, Balbir Singh and Jaspinder Singh, stand convicted. Therefore, this Court finds no fault in the impugned summoning order and the present petition is dismissed, accordingly.

¶20

The prosecution is directed to file a status report before the learned trial Court about the efforts made by it to re-arrest the petitioner.

¶21

08.08.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE

¶22

Note : Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes / No

Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan 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

Satish Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sarvpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Krishan Gopal Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs St of Hy

Paramjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Shobha and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.