Dismissed

Om Parkash & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2012CRM-M/1949/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miscellaneous Criminal Matter challenging a revision order. The petitioners opposed their summons for rioting and hurt offences claiming lack of injuries and a cancelled FIR. The High Court found ample material connecting petitioners to the crime, upheld the lower courts' reasoning, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the summons order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with no merit found.

Om Parkash & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M No. 1949 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: October 8, 2012

¶4

Om Parkash and another

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶13

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the judgment dated 7.8.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by petitioner No. 1, Om Parkash, challenging the order, dated 8.10.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, was dismissed.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2- complainant, Jai Kishan, son of Nikka Ram, had filed a complaint against the petitioners and five more persons alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149, IPC.

¶16

CRM-M No. 1949 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

After recording the statement of respondent No. 2- complainant, Jai Kishan, and the doctor, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, summoned the petitioners and the other accused to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149, IPC. The revision filed by petitioner No. 1, Om Parkash, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated 7.8.2009, and, hence, the present petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, had illegally summoned the petitioners and their co-accused as they did not cause injuries to respondent No. 2-complainant. Learned counsel further argued that respondent No. 2-complainant had earlier lodged an FIR bearing No. 129, dated 30.9.2005, but the police after investigation submitted a cancellation report. The notice was issued to respondent No. 2-complainant by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and when respondent No. 2- complainant did not agree with the cancellation report, then the same was returned to the police for further investigation/reinvestigation. Even thereafter, the cancellation report was moved by the investigating agency and the same was accepted. The same Magistrate on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2-complainant, summoned the petitioners.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant, has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that prima facie case for commission of the offences for which the petitioners and other

¶21

CRM-M No. 1949 of 2010 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

co-accused have been summoned to face the trial, are clearly made out. He further submitted that the averments of the complaint were corroborated by the statements of respondent No. 2-complainant, Jai Kishan, and the doctor who medico-legally examined him.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

¶25

The petitioners and other co-accused have been summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, by applying his mind to the preliminary evidence led by respondent No. 2-complainant. Even the revision petition filed by petitioner No. 1, Om Parkash, challenging the summoning order, has also been dismissed.

¶26

I have also re-appraised the contents of the complaint (Annexure P-4) and the other material available on record and find that there is ample material to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime for which they have been summoned. The reasoning recorded by the two Courts below cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or wrong. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶27

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶28

October 8, 2012 Pkapoor

Om Parkash & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

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

Buta Khan Vs State of Punjab

Nitu Goel Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nisha Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mohitinder Bawa Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kamal Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others