Dismissed

State of Haryana v. Gunjan Dhingra

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2023CRR/2957/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the State's criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of the respondent in a corruption case. The court held there was no evidence to charge the respondent, especially after the acquittal of the main accused.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition filed by the State against the order of discharge of the respondent was dismissed.

State of Haryana Vs Gunjan Dhingra — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRR-2957-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRR-2957-2017 Reserved on:07.12.2023 Pronounced on: 14.12.2023

State of Haryana

...Pe��oner

Versus

Gunjan Dhingra …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

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

¶10

Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta1on	Sec1ons
516	11.06.2015	Sadar Gurgaon,	8/12 of Preven�on of
		District Gurgaon	Corrup�on Act, 1988

¶14

Challenging the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Addi�onal

¶15

Sessions Judge, Gurugram discharging respondent in the above cap�oned FIR, the State

¶16

had come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision pe��on in the year 2017.

¶17

As per the prosecu�on’s case, complainant Vijay Kumar Inspector/SHO stated that on 11.06.2015, two males and one female visited his office. The male disclosed his name as Gunjan Dhingra-respondent and another male has disclosed his name as Prashant Mendira;a and introduced that lady as his wife. Pooja wife of respondent Gunjan Dhingra had lodged a complaint against him. The complainant directed one female Assistant Sub Inspector to enquire into the said complaint made by Pooja. Prashant Mendira;a asked Gunjan Dhingra to leave the office of the complainant and at that �me Prashant Mendira;a and his wife remained in the office. At that point of �me, Prashant Mendira;a a;empted to keep an amount of Rs. 20, 000/- below the diary lying on the table of the complainant. On this, the complainant warned them that he does not support

¶18

JYOTI 2023.12.15 08:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CRR-2957-2017

¶20

corrup�on. However, Prashant Mendira;a insisted the complainant to keep that money. On this, the complainant directed MHC Raj Kumar and Constable Sunil Kumar to detain both the persons because they a;empted to bribe him. Subsequently, the above cap�oned FIR was registered against them. A>er comple�on of inves�ga�on, the inves�gator launched the prosecu�on against both Prashant Mendira;a and his wife.

¶21

At the �me of framing of charges, vide order dated 06.10.2016 learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram did not find any evidence based on which respondent Gunjan Dhingra could have been charge sheeted.

¶22

Since the other accused Prashant Mendira;a had been charge-sheeted, as such, the trial had proceeded against him. Based on the above facts, it is clear that Prashant Mendira;a was the main accused, who had placed money below the diary of the complainant/inspector. However, counsel for respondent informed the Court that in the trial, the main accused Prashant Mendira;a has been acqui;ed. Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana, also confirmed this fact that Prashant Mendira;a has been acqui;ed on merits by the trial Court. Admi;edly, respondent Gunjan Dhingra had le> the room of the inspector when the alleged bribe was offered by Prashant Mendira;a and only his wife was siCng with him. Even there is no evidence against her wife. There is no allega�on of any delibera�on talked between them, as such; the prosecu�on is not launched against her. Even if all the allega�ons would have been taken as gospel truth, on the face of it s�ll no offence could have been made out against respondent Gunjan Dhingra. Now the subsequent development vide which even the main accused has been acqui;ed is another reason which establishes the lack of evidence qua his involvement.

¶23

Given above, there is no illegality in the order of discharge and the present pe��on filed by the State is dismissed.

¶24

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 14.12.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes JYOTI Whether reportable: No. 2023.12.15 08:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

State of Haryana v. Gunjan Dhingra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Gunjan Dhingra

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

Sohan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rajnesh Vs State of Haryana

Kapila Sherawat Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gurpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

Imran Ahmed Wani Vs State of Punjab