The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of summons. The court found the petition infructuous because the respondent had admitted the matter was pending in the High Court and an FIR was lodged, making further cognizance inadmissible.
The petition was disposed of as infructuous.
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::
CWP No.5536 of 2011 (O & M)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5536 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: February 08, 2012.
Bir Parkash Malhotra and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Bably Kumari, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of proceedings which have been initiated by respondents No. 2 and 3 whereby the petitioners have been issued summons (Annexure P-15) dated 04.03.2011.
" 4. That the respondent No.3 in order to listen to
::2::
CWP No.5536 of 2011 (O & M)
the grievances of the applicant and the other party and to know about the real facts of dispute called the other party i.e. Bir Parkash Malhotra s/o Baldev Raj Malhotra, Baldev Raj Malhotra son of Sudagar Mal and Monika wife of Bir Parkash Malhotra through notice No.6945 dated 04.03.2011 in his administrative capacity only just to listen both the parties and to see if there was any matter worth decision by him in the capacity of an administrative officer.
5. That when the matter came up again before him, he came to know that the said matter was pending for decision in the Hon'ble High Court and that an FIR regarding the dispute had also been lodged, the respondent No.3 could not take cognizance of the matter any further and as such the same was filed on 05.05.2011."
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
February 08, 2012 sukhpreet
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the public interest litigation and constitutional writ petition require disposal given that underlying proceedings have become redundant.
Whether the petitionfor quashing court proceedingsis maintainable when the proceedings are already adjourned or rendered infructuous.
Whether the petitioners sought quashing of summons dated 04.03.2011 initiated by respondents No. 2 and 3.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bir Parkash Malhotra and others
State of Punjab and others
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
