Dismissed

Manjit Kaur v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2013CRM-M/11011/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a supplementary charge sheet, citing prior Supreme Court precedents regarding unauthorized presentation and identity dispute. The court dismissed the petition as it was not pressed on merits but granted liberty to file a revision and continued exemption from personal appearance for 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed; liberty to file revision granted; exemption from personal appearance continued for 90 days.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M No. 11011 of 2012

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 11011 of 2012 Date of decision : April 09, 2013

Manjit Kaur

...... Petitioner

State of Haryana and another,

¶9

...... Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. V.K Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG Haryana

¶15

Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶16

¶17

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶18

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶19

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶20

¶21

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

¶22

This is a petition for quashing the supplementary charge sheet.

¶23

On 16.5.2012, the following order was passed :-

¶24

“ Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. S.K.Bannu and Shankar (SC) 1981 (SC) AIR 22 and Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna (SC) , 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 828 to contend that the supplementary challan in the present case was presented before the trial Court without taking formal permission from the Magistrate. He has further argued that the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceedings and in the FIR the cause of action was same.

¶25

Notice of motion for 19.9.2012.

¶26

Personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is exempted subject to the following

¶27

CRM-M No. 11011 of 2012

¶28

::2::

¶29

conditions :- (i) petitioner shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute her identity as an accused; (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in her absence but in the presence of her counsel; (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose.”

¶30

Counsel for the respondents state that after the filing of the challan, charge has been framed and the petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the same in a revision, but the present petition would not be maintainable.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner states that he would not press this petition on merits but liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a revision against the charge framed against him, and that his personal appearance may be continued to be exempted till the decision of the said revision petition.

¶32

Consequently, this petition is dismissed as not pressed. The interim order shall continue for a period of 90 (ninety) days from today to enable the petitioner to obtain any appropriate order either from the revisional Court or from the trial Court.

Manjit Kaur v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Resham Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gram Panchayat Village Binjal Vs Director C/H Pb.Etc.

Pinki & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.