Dismissed

Phalel Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2023CRM-M/46665/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that since the order framing charges was not challenged and that order replaces the police report, the current petition is not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on ground of non-maintainability due to failure to challenge the order framing charges. Liberty granted to challenge the framing order.

Phalel Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2023:PHHC:145041

¶2

226

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 46665 of 2018 Date of Decision: 15.11.2023

Phalel Singh

-Pe oner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

-Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: None for the pe oner.

¶12

Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab with Insp Rajpal Kaur.

¶13

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta on	Sec on(s)
03	15.03.2016	Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad 01, Mohali	7, 13 (2) and 88 of the P.C. Act

¶17

Seeking quashing of FIR, pe oner had come up before this Court by filing this

¶18

pe on way back in the year 2018.

¶19

Counsel for the State submits that in the interregnum, charges have been framed and 02 out of 14 prosecu on witnesses have already been examined. Since, the order of framing of charges replaced the police report, now it is required to challenge the said order and present pe on is not maintainable.

¶20

Perusal of the prayer clause and pe on reveals that the order of framing charges has not been challenged. Once a judicial order has been passed for framing of charges, then the police report gets merged with the same and it is necessary to challenge the same. Since the order has not been challenged, as such the present pe on is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. Liberty is reserved to challenge the order of framing charges if so required and the me for which the pe on is pending shall not be counted for the purpose of

¶21

limita on.

¶22

Counsel for the private respondent and the State to supply photocopy of this order to the trial Court.

¶23

All pending applica ons, if any also stands disposed of.

¶24

15.11.2023		(ANOOP CHIT	KARA)
Jyo" Sharma		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶25

Jyoti Sharma 2023.11.17 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

Phalel Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phalel Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Sirajuddin Vs Jagdish Raj & Ors.

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Siri Bhagwan Vs State of Haryana

Rohit @ Kalia Vs State of Haryana and Another

Omparkash Rana Vs State of Haryana and Others

Swaranjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab