Allowed

Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2017CRM-M/37197/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court order allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an improper summons order. The court found no justification for summoning the accused after the case was fixed for preliminary evidence and noted procedural irregularities. The matter was remanded to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.05.2009 summoning the accused set aside; matter remanded to trial court; petitioners need not appear till fresh summoning order.

Bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

114

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-37197 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 21, 2017

¶4

Bahadur Singh and another

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State through Govt. Food Inspector, PCMS-I, PHC, Sauja, Patiala

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Deep Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.290 dated 17.10.2007 titled as 'State vs. Bahadur Singh and Gurpreet Singh' under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and order of summoning i.e. order of notice dated 15.05.2009, whereby notice has been issued to accused-petitioners along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

¶16

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

¶17

From the perusal of the record of this case as well as of lower

¶18

Vineet Gulati 2017.03.15 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-37197 of 2010

¶20

-2-

¶21

Court record, I find that after filing of the complaint, it was fixed for preliminary evidence. Then notice to the complainant was issued time and again and as per order dated 17.12.2008, fresh notice was issued to the complainant for 05.05.2009. On 05.05.2009, the trial Court passed the order “Received by transfer. It be registered. New notice to the accused be issued for 09.07.2009.” Nothing has been mentioned, as to why the notice has been issued to the accused when the case was fixed for preliminary evidence and notices were issued earlier to the complainant only on so many dates.

¶22

Therefore, from the perusal of the record, I find that no proper summoning order has been passed against the accused in the complaint case and only on this ground, the order dated 05.05.2009 issuing notice to the accused is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to proceed in this case, as per law.

¶23

Therefore, the present petition stands allowed accordingly. The petitioners need not to appear before the trial Court, till any fresh summoning order is passed by the trial Court against them.

¶24

February 21, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶26

Vineet Gulati 2017.03.15 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahadur Singh & Anr. 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

Kewal Krishan Vs Ashok Sethi

Bhopal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Naresh Vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Vs Pardeep Kumar

Sajan Mishra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagtar Singh @ Boxer and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.