A criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order was dismissed. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all pleas before the trial court.
Petition dismissed; liberty to raise pleas before trial court granted.
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.
Crl. Misc No. M-22089 of 2009 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. M-22089 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.12.2013
Subhash Chand
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2
RITU BAHRI , J.
In the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing of complaint case No. 128 of 2009 u/s 323/341/166/167 IPC and Section 12 of the P.C. Act and summoning order dated 01.11.2007 is sought.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 made a complaint (P-1) alleging therein that he along with his brother Bansi Lal Chamel Ram were going to Mehmadpur to attend the ill wife of his friend Ramesh. At about 7.30 P.M, Subhash Chand, SHO P.S. Kunjpura stopped the complainant near Newal Canal on 24.08.2006 and asked for document of the motorcycle. The complainant handed over all the documents of the motorcycle to the SHO along with
Arora Gaurav 2014.01.09 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. Misc No. M-22089 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
licence but the SHO threw all the documents and told that these documents are forged and complainant and his friend namely Bansi were illegally restrained by the SHO concerned nearly one and half/two hours. Rs.500/- was sought from the complainant as bribe to release them as well as the motorcycle in question. The complainant showed his inability to give Rs.500/- as bribe and raised objections on his demand of bribe then SHO Subhash Chand-accused No. 1 gave fist blow and H.C. Vedpal-accused No. 2 armed with lathi gave three blow of lathi on the legs of the complainant and impounded the motorcycle illegally inspite of showing all of the document of the motorcycle to the accused persons and torn the lamination of his licence. The complainant didn't medico legally examined himself as he was in very hurry to reach the village.
Thereafter, the complainant was in dire need of motorcycle which was impounded by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and to get the Motorcycle released, he went to the office of D.T.O Karnal and showed all the documents relating the motorcycle and after paying Rs.200/- as penalty imposed by the D.T.O Karnal and got his motorcycle released from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 from P.S Kunjpura after showing the receipt of penalty. The complaint was filed thereafter and the accused were summoned to face the trial under Sections 323/341/166/167 IPC and Section 12 of the P.C. Act vide order dated 29.08.2006.
On notice, a reply has been filed by respondent No. 1 stating therein that petitioner along with Constable Shamsher Singh were on patrolling duty in Government Vehicle bearing No. HR03D-
Arora Gaurav 2014.01.09 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. Misc No. M-22089 of 2009 (O&M)
-3-
6149 and were present in the local area of P.S. Kunjpura. As per DDR No. 11 dated 24.08.2006, departure time of these official was at 9 A.M and arrival time was at 9.35 P.M. The defence taken by the petitioner, can by examined by the trial Court as to whether ASI Fateh Singh along with Sukhbir No. 62 and Ranvir Singh were on nakabandi and had returned back at Newal Canal and had returned back at 10.20 P.M after vehicle checking, as per entry No. 36 dated 24.08.2006 (P-4).
This petition is dismissed by giving a liberty to the petitioner to take all the pleas before the trial Court.
03.12.2013 G.Arora
Arora Gaurav 2014.01.09 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order should be allowed or dismissed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Subhash Chand
State of Haryana
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
