CRR for quashing an order correcting a clerical error in the father's name under Section 319 Cr.PC. The Court held the correction was valid and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
The petition challenging the correction order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-350-2023 (O&M) Decided on : 10.02.2023
Akamjit Singh @ Ekamjit Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. D.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Pratap Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
The petitioner is impugning the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which he was ordered to face trial as an additional accused along with other accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. Learned counsel submits that after registration of FIR No.76 dated 03.09.2015 under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 294, 148, 149 and 506 IPC, the investigating agency found the petitioner innocent and hence, did not challan him. It was vide order dated 21.11.2019 learned trial Court by wrongly allowing an application moved under Section 319 Cr.PC by the prosecution, summoned the petitioner as an additional accused to face trial along with other accused. While drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, learned counsel further submits that the trial Court erred in making corrections qua the father's name of the petitioner, which also point out to his false implication.
SONIA BURA 2023.02.13 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR-350-2023
-2-
Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material available on record.
The petitioner is impugning the order dated 04.01.2023, which was passed on an application moved by the prosecution for correction of the name of father of the petitioner. It transpires that after application under Section 319 Cr.PC was allowed for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused on 21.11.2019, summons on the petitioner could not be effected and were received back unserved as inadvertently in the application under Section 319 Cr.PC, the name of the father of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Gurjit Singh instead of Jagjit Singh on account of clerical error. Vide impugned order, necessary corrections were carried out. This Court, thus, does not find any ground much less cogent reason to set aside the impugned order as it was on account of a clerical error that the name of the father of the petitioner had been wrongly mentioned as Gurjit Singh instead of Jagjit Singh.
Accordingly, the present petitioner being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE
10.02.2023 sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA BURA 2023.02.13 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside an order correcting a clerical error in the name of the petitioner's father made under Section 319 Cr.PC.
Whether the clerical error in describing the petitioner's father provides grounds to declare the petitioner falsely implicated in the criminal trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Akamjit Singh @ Ekamjit Singh
State of Punjab
Manjari Nehru Kaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
