Allowed

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Sept 2015CRM-M/17688/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Section 482 CrPC petition to set aside orders denying the petitioners a chance to cross-examine prosecution witness PW-1 Tushima. The High Court directed the trial court to grant one such opportunity subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; Trial Court directed to grant one opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 Tushima subject to payment of ₹5,000 costs.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-17688 of 2013

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-17688 of 2013 Date of Decision: 29.9.2015.

¶5

Ashok Kumar and others

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. J.S.Sekhon, AAG, Punjab

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the orders dated 10.3.2015 (Annexure P-3) and 18.5.2015 (Annexure P-4).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that PW-1 Tushima could not be cross-examined on 10.3.2015 as the counsel for the petitioners was not available. However, petitioners were present in person before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to enable them to cross-examine PW Tushima.

¶15

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

¶16

Vide order dated 10.3.2015, cross-examination of PW

¶17

GURPREET SINGH 2015.10.01 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-17688 of 2013 -2 -

¶19

Tushima was treated to be nil and the case was adjourned for examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be just and expedient to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to enable them to cross-examine PW Tushima. In case the petitioners are not permitted to crossexamine PW Tushima-complainant, they would not be able to put up their defence.

¶20

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 10.3.2015 (Annexure P-3) and 18.5.2015 (Annexure P-4) are set aside. Trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to enable them to cross-examine PW Tushima subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs. Costs be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Kapurthala. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed further with the case, in accordance with law.

¶21

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶22

September 29, 2015 Gurpreet

¶23

GURPREET SINGH 2015.10.01 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

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

Krishan Kumar Vs Jai Devi and Anr.

Nishan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaibuna & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vijay Kumari and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sonu and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.