Allowed an exemption for DGP's personal appearance. Dismissed criminal miscellaneous petitions without issuing directions on investigation correctness, directing applicant to approach trial court later.
Exemption from personal appearance for DGP allowed; main petitions dismissed without directions.
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.
(1)
Crl. Misc. No. 13855 of 2012 and Crl. Misc. No. M-36658 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 13855 of 2012 and Crl. Misc. No. M-36658 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: 18.07.2012
Manjit Kaur
..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..........Respondent
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate for the applicant in Crl. Misc. No. 13855 of 2012.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Vide order dated 2.7.2012, DGP, Punjab was directed to remain present in Court.
Today Mr. V.K. Bhawra, ADGP, Crime and Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar are present in Court. An application for exemption from personal appearance has been moved by Director General of Police, Punjab on the ground that he has been deputed by the State Government to attend a seminar at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad. Application is allowed and personal appearance of Director General of Police, Punjab is exempted.
Crl. Misc. No. 13855 of 2012 and Crl. Misc. No. M-36658 of 2009
(2)
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that investigation was conducted by a special team comprising of seven officers/officials and on the basis of evidence available action has been taken and the accused have been arrested.
Crl. Misc. No. 13855 of 2012 has been moved by applicantRohit Kumar @ Babbu for impleading him as respondent No.2
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of investigation, which is not fair and the same has been conducted in a hurried manner. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been made accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Pankaj Sandhu @ Bhima.
Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record.
Nothing can be said at this stage about the correctness of investigation as no record is there and the same is to be seen by the trial Court after presentation of final report. In case the applicant is aggrieved in any manner by the investigation, he can challenge the same. Accordingly, no ground is made out to issue any directions in the application. The applicant is at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.
In view of the stand taken by the investigating agency and the status report, no further direction is required to be issued in the main case also.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
July 18, 2012 pooja
Crl. Misc. No. 13855 of 2012 and (3) Crl. Misc. No. M-36658 of 2009
2 issues framed by the court
Whether directions are required in the criminal miscellaneous applications regarding the investigation.
Whether the applicant has a ground to challenge the investigation at this stage.
Manjit Kaur
State of Punjab
Rohit Kumar @ Babbu
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
