Partly allowed

Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2012CRM-M/19174/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus/criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside orders by the trial and revision courts prematurely closing pre-charge evidence. The court directed the trial court to grant one more effective opportunity to the complainant to conclude evidence, subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 10,000 as costs to the respondents to compensate for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders closed pre-charge evidence are set aside. Trial Court directed to provide one more effective opportunity to conclude evidence. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 10,000 costs to respondent

Gurpal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-19174 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-19174 of 2012(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:04.07.2012

¶6

Gurpal Singh ......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.K.K.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶13

The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited

¶14

purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record is that, the petitioner-complainant-Gurpal Singh filed a criminal complaint against Jaswant Singh and others(private respondent Nos.2 to 4), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 452, 506 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

¶15

After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned to face the trial. The case was adjourned for recording the pre-charge evidence of the complainant. Ultimately, the case came up for hearing and the trial Court closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.10.2011(Annexure P-1). Sequelly, the revision petition filed by the complainant was dismissed as well, being not maintainable, by the Revisional Court, by means of impugned order dated 29.05.2012(Annexure P-2).

¶16

The petitioner-complainant still did not feel satisfied and preferred

¶17

the present petition, to challenge the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2),

¶18

Criminal Misc.No.M-19174 of 2012

¶19

¶20

invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶21

At the very outset, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I hereby exempt the issuance of notices to the respondents, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the case, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.

¶23

As is evident from the record that in the wake of complaint and preliminary evidence, the private respondents-accused were summoned to face the trial for the indicated offences. When the case was fixed for 24.10.2011, the trial Court closed the pre-charge evidence of the petitioner by way of impugned order (Annexure P-1). The same very mistake was repeated by the Revisional Court by way of impugned order(Annexure P-2).

¶24

As is clear from the impugned orders that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Courts below, to close the pre-charge evidence of the complainant was that since, number of opportunities including the last opportunities have already been granted, so, there is no justification to grant any further opportunity to the complainant to produce his pre-charge evidence.

¶25

True, it may be that, many opportunities were granted to the complainant to conclude his pre-charge evidence. But, here to my mind, it ipso facto is not a cogent ground to negate the prayer of the petitioner in this relevant connection. The bare perusal of the interim orders reproduced in the Grounds of Petition would reveal that the petitioner-complainant alone cannot be blamed in this respect. He has duly moved an application for summoning Dr.Davinder

¶26

Criminal Misc.No.M-19174 of 2012 3

¶27

Kumar and Dr.Hatinder Kaur, Radiologist, on payment of process fee and diet money. But Dr.Hatinder Kaur did not appear in the Court despite service. In that eventuality, it was the duty of the trial Court to secure the presence of the relevant witnesses and the petitioner cannot possibly be penalised without his fault in this respect. To me, the medical and other evidence sought to be produced is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. Moreover, the production of entire evidence is essential and is the legal requirement of fair trial.

¶28

Taking the accusation/nature of the offences into focus, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the complainant, to conclude his pre-charge evidence, particularly when the private respondents-accused can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. The same very error was repeated by the Revisional Court. Therefore, to my mind, the Courts below have committed the illegality and material procedural irregularity and the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶29

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2) are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the petitioner, to conclude his evidence. The petitioner is further directed to take every endeavour and effective steps, to conclude the evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitionercomplainant to the respondents-accused. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the respondents.

¶30

July 04, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

¶31

Criminal Misc.No.M-19174 of 2012 4

Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Lakhbir Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab

Rajbir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Faqir Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Monika Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dal Chand Vs State of Haryana & or.S