Dismissed

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2012CRM-M/20189/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for action against accused and status report due to alleged police inaction. Court found that the affidavit disclosed sufficient investigation progress, including anticipatory bail confirmations and a planned challan filing, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous following the filing of the police affidavit detailing investigation progress.

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

¶1

CRM M 20189 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM M 20189 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.01.2012

¶4

Hardeep Singh

¶5

........ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. K S Hissowal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of direction to the official respondents for taking action against the private respondents who have committed fraud with the petitioner and also to place before the court the status report of the case as the police till now has not taken any actin against the guilty and no arrest has been made by the police.

¶18

Reply by way of affidavit of Sukhjinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Sangrur on behalf of respondent NO. 1 to 3 has been filed. As per the said reply, in light of order dated 28.02.2011 passed by this Court, respondents No. 4 to 6 participated in the

¶19

CRM M 20189 of 2011 2

¶20

investigation on 11.03.2011 and released on the same day. Thereafter, the anticipatory bail of these respondents was confirmed by the Court vide order dated 02.05.2011. On the other side, respondent No. 7 and 8 could not be arrested as they evading their arrest and absconding. Now, they have been declared as Proclaimed offender by the learned Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak vide order dated 03.07.2001. It is submitted that due to lack of custodial interrogation of main accused persons (respondent no. 4 to 6) respondent No. 7 and 8 who have been declared as POs could not be arrested and the location/addresses of remaining unknown accused persons could not be ascertained and the amount in question could not be recovered. Therefore, for the said reasons and for fair investigation and in the interest of justice, the custodial interrogation of respondents No. 4 to 6 is urgently required. However, every effort is being made to arrest the remaining accused persons .

¶21

It is further stated by learned State counsel on instructions from HC Kewal Singh that challan against those accused who have since joined the investigation and were found guilty will be filed on 31.01.2012.

¶22

In view of the above, the present petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.

¶23

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶24

24.01.2012 mohan

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sajag Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Darshan Singh Bajaj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satwant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.