Allowed

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2012CRM-M/27018/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance without a written complaint.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 31 dated 23.3.2011 under Sections 186 and 353 IPC registered at Police Station Banga and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1 -

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-27018 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-27018 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2012.

¶5

Gurpreet Singh and others

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Deepak Garg, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 31 dated 23.3.2011, under Section 186, 353 of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short) registered at Police Station Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court had erred in taking the cognizance of the offence falling under Section 186, 353 IPC in the absence of a written complaint to the Court. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision passed by this Court in ' Ram Kumar versus State of Haryana, 1998(1) C.L.R., 633' wherein it was held as under:-

¶15

“These decisions go to support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court was not competent to take cognizance of those offence falling under Section 332 and 353 IPC also in the absence of

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-27018 of 2012 (O&M) -2 -

¶17

complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or his superior. Therefore, the Court was not competent to take cognizance of any of the offences falling under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in the absence of such a written complaint to the Court. Therefore, even if the trial is allowed to proceed, the petitioner cannot be ultimately convicted as the trial Court lacks the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the entire proceedings will be a mere exercise in futility. This is certainly a compelling circumstance, which calls for the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the preliminary objection taken by the respondent-State as well as the other objections are not sustainable.”

¶18

Following the above judgment, this Court in 'Nirbhai

¶19

Singh versus State of Punjab and another, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal), 614' has held as under:-

¶20

“I am of the considered view that the F.I.R. In question deserves to be quashed in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), wherein it has been held by this Court that the Trial Court was not competent to take cognizance in any of the offence falling under Sections 186 and 353 I.P.C. against the petitioner in the absence of such written complaint to the Court. Therefore, even if the trial is allowed to proceed, the petitioner cannot be ultimately convicted as the Trial Court lacks the jurisdiction to take cognizance

¶21

Crl. Misc. No. M-27018 of 2012 (O&M) -3 -

¶22

of the offence and the entire proceedings will be merely an exercise in futility. This is certainly a compelling circumstance, which call for the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the proceedings.”

¶23

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

¶24

In the present case, the FIR has been registered against the petitioners under Section 186, 353 IPC. In view of the decision by this Court in Ram Kumar's case (supra) and Nirbhai Singh's case (supra), the FIR in question is liable to be quashed as the trial Court was not competent to take cognizance of the matter in the absence of a written complaint to the said Court. In case the trial Court is allowed to proceed, the petitioner cannot be convicted by the trial Court due to lack of jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the offence.

¶25

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 31 dated 23.3.2011, under Section 186, 353 IPC, registered at Police Station Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶26

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶27

November 09, 2012 Gurpreet

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Mehra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Anudeep Duggal Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sham Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vinod and Others Vs Jaibir and Another

Patram Vs State of Haryana