Dismissed

Farukh v. Jagram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2014CRM-M/10797/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition seeking quashing of the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court found the private complaint dismissed due to lack of evidence and unfounded delay. It held that no jurisdictional ground was made out. The order noted the petitioner's earlier acquittal possibilities would not be prejudiced if he uses the complaint's facts as a defence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's plea for intervening jurisdiction was rejected and the order dismissing the private complaint was upheld.

Farukh Vs Jagram and Ors. — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-10797-2014 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-10797-2014 (O&M). Decided on: March 27, 2014.

¶4

Farukh

¶5

..... Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jagram and others

¶8

..... Respondent(s)

¶9

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

¶12

PRESENT Mr.Mohammad Arshad, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶14

A private complaint filed against the police officials has been dismissed by the trial Court at the summoning stage. The revisional Court has also upheld that order.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a member of Anti Corruption Society and that on 10.3.2011, official respondents had apprehended trucks of Sajid and Innas and brought the same to the police Station. The accused had demanded Rs.20,000/- for releasing the trucks. The entire episode was recorded by the petitioner on his mobile phone. On account of said act of the petitioner, the police officials had snatched his Identity Card, PAN Card and a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also kept him in custody for two days. He was tortured physically and mentally and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was extorted from the petitioner by threatening that they would falsely implicate him in a false case. The Courts

¶16

¶17

Raj Kumar Arora 2014.03.28 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-10797-2014 (O&M)

¶19

below have considered the fact that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.93 of 2011 under Sections 279, 336, 120-B, 332, 335 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Ferozepur Jhirka and in order to create a false defence, the petitioner has filed the complaint and that there was no convincing evidence available to substantiate the allegations.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length ,and considered the circumstance that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.93 of 2011. He claims that on account of his activity as a member of Anti Corruption Society and having undertaken a sting operation on 10.3.2011, he has been falsely implicated in the case on 11.3.2011, but it is not understood as to how the petitioner remained silent for a period of about 20 months before instituting a private complaint dated 25.10.2012. The delay further has not been considered by the Courts below but it is certainly a circumstance validating the ground of dismissal of the complaint.

¶21

No ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction

¶22

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to take the pleas taken in the complaint as defence pleas in the criminal case registered against him.

¶25

March 27, 2014. JUDGE rka

¶26

¶27

Raj Kumar Arora 2014.03.28 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Farukh v. Jagram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farukh v. Jagram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurbachan Pal Singh and Anr. Vs Devinder Singh

Des Raj Mall Vs State of Punjab etc.

Atul Anand and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.