Dismissed

Talwinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2013CRM-M/32390/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR alleging theft, citing prior bail and parallel FIRs against a co-accused. Evidence revealed the petitioner had indeed stolen the vehicle. Court dismissed the petition, deeming fact-finding inappropriate during ongoing investigation into the specific theft charge.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of FIR No.76 and subsequent proceedings was dismissed.

Talwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab etc. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-32390 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-32390 of 2012 Date of decision: 9.4.2013

Talwinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.PS Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.76 dated 29.9.2012, registered under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Bakshiwala, District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 29.9.2012, a secret information was received by ASI Gurmail Singh to the effect that Avtar Dass s/o Bladev Dass, Talwinder Singh s/o Magher Singh have stolen a motorcycle bearing No.PB-11T-2695 make Hero Honda Passion, silver colour and for selling the same, they are coming to Patiala from Bhadson side. On the same, the barricades were led. When the accused came from Bhadson side, they were stopped by the police, but they tried to run away.

¶17

CRM No.M-32390 of 2012

¶18

¶19

However, suddenly their motorcycle switched off. They were asked to give the documents with regard to the ownership of the motorcycle, but they did not have anything. The property was assumed to be stolen and a ruqa was prepared. The petitioner was arrested. Ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his associate Avtar Dass. During investigation, it emerges that the motorcycle in question was owned by one Sukhwinder Singh. It also came to notice during investigation that petitioner had also taken away one truck bearing No.PB-10Q 9917 and machinery of sheller which were in the joint name of Talwinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh.

¶20

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 379/411 of IPC is made out. He further submits that FIR No.8 dated 17.1.2012 under Sections 406, 420 of IPC was registered against Gurwinder Singh, partner of the petitioner, by Sub Divisional Officer, Tapa on the complaint of Manager, MARKFED and PUNGRAIN with the allegations that Gurwinder Singh embezzled the paddy which was delivered by MARKFED and PUNGRAIN, whereby a loss of more than crores of rupees was caused to the agency. The said Gurwinder Singh has taken a plea that embezzlement in fact was committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently, he was admitted to bail by JMIC, Barnala vide order dated 14.2.2012. It is further argued that the Gurwinder Singh is an influential person and has framed the petitioner in the instant case. He makes reference to the effect that the observations made in the order dated

¶21

CRM No.M-32390 of 2012 3

¶22

19.4.2012, whereby the petitioner was granted bail in FIR No.26 dated 6.4.2012, under Section 380 of IPC and states that it was a case of double jeopardy as another FIR on similar facts already stands registered against the petitioner with some ulterior motive to re-arrest the petitioner.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶25

In the instant case, the prayer is for quashing the FIR in question. No observations of the Court with regard to the false implication of the petitioner has been noticed. The facts pertains to two other FIRs i.e. 8 dated 17.1.2012 registered against the petitioner and his co-accused Gurwinder Singh and FIR No.26 dated 6.4.2012, registered against Gurwinder Singh at Patiala under Section 380 of IPC. It came to the light during investigation that the motorcycle recovered from Avtar Dass was stolen by the petitioner owned by one Sukhwinder Singh. The petitioner has also taken away one truck bearing registration No.PB-10Q 9917 and machinery of sheller which were in the joint name of the petitioner and one Gurvinder Singh. The investigation is in progress.

¶26

Keeping in view the fact that the FIR against the petitioner already stands with regard to the theft of the motorcycle in question which was recovered from Avtar Dass, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to record any finding of fact particularly when the investigation

¶27

CRM No.M-32390 of 2012

is going on.

Dismissed.

However, nothing stated herein above, shall be construed as

¶32

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶33

9.4.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Talwinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talwinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Vs State of Haryana

Purshottam Lal Vs State of Haryana

Amit and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Surjit Kumar Vs State of Punjab