Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2023CRM-M/61665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to file a representation to the DGPI for a time-bound decision on investigation into two FIRs. The court reserved liberty to appeal but clarified there was no adjudication on merits and interrogation could proceed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file a representation to the DGPI to be decided within two months in a time-bound manner with a reasoned order.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

CRM-M-61665-2023

2023:PHHC:157078

105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-61665-2023 Date of Decision: 08.12.2023

Sandeep Kumar

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶13

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

The present pe��on has been filed under Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of necessary direc�on to respondents No. 1 to 4 to conduct fair and impar�al inves�ga�on/enquiry in the FIR No. 63 dated 06.02.2023 under Sec�ons 420, 506, 120-B IPC (Sec�on 8 of PC Act added later on) registered in Police Sta�on Palam Vihar, District Gurugram and FIR No. 316 dated 06.11.2023 under Sec�ons 420, 120-B IPC registered in Police Sta�on Sector 17/18 Gurugram, District Gurugram.

¶17

A>er arguing for some �me, counsel for the pe��oner submits that he would be sa�sfied, in case he is permi@ed to file a fresh representa�on and concerned authority be directed to decide the same in a �me bound manner.

¶18

No�ces are served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of no�ces to the private respondents is required.

¶19

Let the pe��oner represent the Director General of Police, within two weeks from today. If the pe��oner files a representa�on with in the above-men�oned �me period of two weeks, then, the same shall be decided by the Director General of Police, within two months, either himself/herself or by authorizing and delega�ng it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representa�onists without delay. In the representa�on, pe��oner to men�on the email I’d of his counsel so that the concerned officer could communicate them the outcome.

¶20

JYOTI 2023.12.08 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-61665-2023

2023:PHHC:157078

Liberty reserved to the pe��oner to file fresh pe��on or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.

¶25

It is clarified that there is no adjudica�on on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interroga�on of the pe��oner is required in any cognizable case.

¶26

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner and State can download this order and other relevant par�culars from the official web page of this court and a�est it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

¶27

Pe--on is allowed to the extent men-oned above . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶28

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 08.12.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶29

JYOTI 2023.12.08 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Amandeep Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chander Mohan Vs State of Haryana

Ram Kishan @ Jiwan Ram Vs State of Haryana

Jasnoor Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohd. Aftab Vs State of Ut Civil Secretariat

Kirpal Singh Vs State of Punjab