In this miscellaneous criminal matter, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR and consequential proceedings. Upon advocacy noting the cancellation report was pending, the court held the petition infructuous and dismissed it.
The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
Criminal Misc. M 13727 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. M 13727 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.05.2012
Vijay Kumar
........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab
Mr. R S Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 2
-.-
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
Prays for quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 29.03.2011 under Sections 406, 420, 182 IPC, Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sardul Singh states, that the cancellation report has been prepared and same is pending before the higher authorities for approval.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State
Criminal Misc. M 13727 of 2011 2
of Gujrat and another 2012(2) RCR (Criminal)757, to contend that the pendency of the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a bar for initiation of proceedings unde section 420 of Indian Penal Code as the ingredients of both the offences are not same.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition may be dismissed as having become infructuous.
Dismissed as such.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
14.05.2012
mohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 182 IPC should be quashed upon the filing of a cancellation report pending approval.
Whether the pendency of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act bars initiation of proceedings under Section 420 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujrat and anotherReferred¶22
2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 757
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
