Dismissed

Puran Singh v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC3 Jul 2006C482/466/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttaranchal dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed to challenge the rejection of an application to summon additional accused. The court held it was a premature stage to issue summons and dismissed the appeal, permitting a fresh petition after the material witness was examined.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed; liberty to file a fresh petition after examination of the material witness was granted.

Puran Singh Vs State and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 466 of 2006

¶2

Puran Singh S/o Sri Banwari Lal R/o Village Sherpur Pargana Pachhoowadoon District Dehradun

¶3

…Applicant

¶4

¶5

State of Uttaranchal through Home Secretary, Uttaranchal Dehradun

¶6

Birendra S/o Dambar Bahadur

¶7

Ravi S/o Bijendra

¶8

Sonu S/o Bijendra

¶9

Man Singh C/o Dambar Bahadur All R/o Village Sherpur, P.S. Sahaspur District Dehradun

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

¶12

This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the complainant in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2005 arising out of case crime No. 111 of 2004 under Sections 148, 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(10) SC/ST Act State Vs Dambar Bahadur pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the accused were facing trial for the charges stated above. During the course of prosecution evidence and application was filed by the complainant of the case under Section 319 Cr. P.C. for summoning the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 to face their trial on the strength of the deposition of P.W. 1 Ram Chandra and alleged eyewitness. The application moved by the complainant was rejected by the sessions judge vide order dated 02.06.2006.

¶14

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order this petition has been preferred.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The reporter of the case Puran Singh is also the injured witness. This reporter of the case has not been examined by the prosecution as yet. Puran Singh is a material witness and his evidence would be of much relevance in order to solve the controversy.

¶16

At this stage, do not find any justification to summon the opposite No. 2 to 5 in order to face the trial.

¶17

Learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order and I am also of the view that it is a premature stage to pass the summoning order against the respondents No. 2 to 5.

¶18

The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge does not required any interference.

¶19

The petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶20

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file the petition after examination of the material witness i.e. reporter and injured witness-Puran Singh.

¶21

(B.C. Kandpal, J.)

¶22

03.07.2006 Aswal

Puran Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Singh v. State 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

Smt. Anjum Vs State and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Mahendra Pal Vs Disthorticllture Officer and Ors.

Kunwar Sen @ Kunwar Ji Rathour Vs State

Preetam Vs State

State Vs Rajendra Dutt