Allowed

Boota Singh @ Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2016CRM-M/18173/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed a private complaint filed under Sections 307, 364, 323, 148, and 149 IPC. The court held that since the occurrences were part of an existing FIR with an investigation conducted and petitioners found innocent (listed in Column No. 2), a separate complaint was not maintainable under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.785 dated 08.10.2010 titled as 'Gurjant Singh vs. Baljeet Singh and others' and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Boota Singh @ Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

116

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-18173 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 11, 2016

¶4

Boota Singh and others

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Varun Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Gurjant Singh, for quashing of the complaint No.785 dated 08.10.2010 titled as 'Gurjant Singh vs. Baljeet Singh and others' under Sections 307, 364, 323, 148 and 149 IPC pending before learned JMIC, Ferozepur.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well

¶17

as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶19

From the record, I find that qua the same occurrence, FIR was

¶20

Vineet Gulati 2016.11.23 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM No.M-18173 of 2012

¶22

-2-

¶23

also got registered and challan was presented against Angrej Singh, Daljit Singh and Davinder Singh. After investigation in the FIR, the present petitioners were found innocent and their names were kept in column No.2. Regarding same occurrence, the complainant filed the complaint.

¶24

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jile Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 583 , has laid down the law that a person could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and separate complaint is not maintainable. It is held that a person named in the FIR in murder case, but charge-sheet not filed by the police, such a person cannot be summoned as accused on private complaint filed by aggrieved person under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The person could be summoned by following the procedure under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court fully applies to the facts of the present case.

¶25

When regarding the same occurrence, on the statement of the present complainant, FIR has been registered and investigation has been conducted by the police and challan has been presented against other accused and present petitioners have been found innocent and shown in column No.2, then learned Magistrate has no power to summon the petitioners in a separate complaint filed by the complainant. Rather, the only remedy with the complainant as held in Jile Singh's case (supra) , is to file application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and not to file separate complaint.

¶26

In view of the above discussion, I find that the filing of present complaint against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and amounts to miscarriage of justice.

¶27

Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is Vineet Gulati 2016.11.23 17:02 I attest to the accuracy andallowed. The complaint No.785 dated 08.10.2010 titled as 'Gurjant Singh authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CRM No.M-18173 of 2012

¶29

-3-

¶30

vs. Baljeet Singh and others' under Sections 307, 364, 323, 148 and 149 IPC pending before learned JMIC, Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶31

November 11, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes

¶32

Vineet Gulati 2016.11.23 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Boota Singh @ Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boota Singh @ 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit and Others Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ikatar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sandhya Gupta Vs Nirmal Sharma

Pardeep Singh Vs Baljinder Singh

Balbir Singh @ Bir & Anr. Vs State of Punjab