Petitioners challenged a summons order and sought quashing of a protest petition under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the protest petition was maintainable and the summons order was reasoned.
Instant petition dismissed as it was wholly misconceived and bereft of merit.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-16155 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.5.2012
Pradeep and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
Manohar Singh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL)
The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.'), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the protest petition (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the protest petition filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable. He further submits that the impugned summoning order passed by the learned trial court also suffers from patent illegality.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is wholly misconceived and must fail. There is no denying the fact that the respondent No.1 has got the statutory right to move the protest petition, which he filed in the present case.
Criminal Misc. No. M-16155 of 2012(O&M)
2
So far as the summoning order is concerned, the learned trial court has passed a very reasoned and speaking order. Since the ingredients for offence punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were found missing, the learned trial court has rightly not summoned the petitioners for the said offence.
In this view of the matter, no case for interference has been made out and the present petition is bereft of any merit. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
29.5.2012 AK Sharma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the protest petition was maintainable.
Whether the summoning order suffered from patent illegality.
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC warrants quashing the proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradeep and others
Manohar Singh
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
