2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-12587of 2010
Kuldeep
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 27/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shalini Attri, Deptuy Advocate General, Haryana
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 (1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.147, 148, 307, 506--Arms Act, 1959, S.25--Bail--Change in circumstances since dismissal of petition filed earlier for bail--Statements of complaint and injured recorded before trial court annexed with petition-- Shows that they resiled from their previous statement--They never stated that it was petitioner who caused injuries--Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. (Para 4, 5 & 6)
Showing posts with label Criminal Procedure Code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Procedure Code. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
FIR--Compromise--Cruelty to wife
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-15942 of 2010
Sukhdevinder Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Ahluwalia, Advocate.For the Respondent-State: Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Cruelty to wife--Parties of their own have settled matrimonial dispute amongst them--They have decided to part ways amicably--In circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal prosecution any further--Impugned FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 6 & 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-15942 of 2010
Sukhdevinder Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Ahluwalia, Advocate.For the Respondent-State: Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Cruelty to wife--Parties of their own have settled matrimonial dispute amongst them--They have decided to part ways amicably--In circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal prosecution any further--Impugned FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 6 & 7)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-36803 of 2009
Bijender @ Kaka
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner(In Crl. Misc. No. M- 36803 of 2009): The Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
For the Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-1357 of 2010): Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 342, 365, 392, 397 and 120-B--Bail--Attempt to murder--Petitioners could not be arrested during investigation and declared proclaimed offender--Other accused tried by court were acquitted as complainant and her husband turned volte-face and resiled from their previous statement--Prosecution relying upon same evidence against petitioner--Nothing to show that they had knowledge of registration of FIR against them--Petitioners released on bail. (Para 5, 6 & 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-36803 of 2009
Bijender @ Kaka
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner(In Crl. Misc. No. M- 36803 of 2009): The Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
For the Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-1357 of 2010): Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 342, 365, 392, 397 and 120-B--Bail--Attempt to murder--Petitioners could not be arrested during investigation and declared proclaimed offender--Other accused tried by court were acquitted as complainant and her husband turned volte-face and resiled from their previous statement--Prosecution relying upon same evidence against petitioner--Nothing to show that they had knowledge of registration of FIR against them--Petitioners released on bail. (Para 5, 6 & 7)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl. M.No. M- 28807 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 08/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A and 406--Cruelty to wife--Anticipatory Bail--Demand of dowry--Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant joined investigation--They are no more required for any custodial interrogation--Husband of complainant already arrested and released on bail--No allegations that petitioners are likely to abscond or to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in S.438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl. M.No. M- 28807 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 08/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A and 406--Cruelty to wife--Anticipatory Bail--Demand of dowry--Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant joined investigation--They are no more required for any custodial interrogation--Husband of complainant already arrested and released on bail--No allegations that petitioners are likely to abscond or to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in S.438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36212 of 2009
Narinder Kumar Gupta
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 467, 408 and 471--Bail--Cheating--Criminal breach of trust by agent--Forgery--Allegations that petitioner, Branch Manager of company doing business of exchanging money after selling travelers cheques of company and receiving amount did not deposit same in account of company--Petitioner in custody for last four months--Allegations of embezzlement substantial--Case is to be proved against petitioner in accordance with law--Trial is likely to take time--Fact that the case is based primarily on documentary evidence and chances of petitioner tempering with same are not there--Petitioner admitted to bail. (Para 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36212 of 2009
Narinder Kumar Gupta
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 467, 408 and 471--Bail--Cheating--Criminal breach of trust by agent--Forgery--Allegations that petitioner, Branch Manager of company doing business of exchanging money after selling travelers cheques of company and receiving amount did not deposit same in account of company--Petitioner in custody for last four months--Allegations of embezzlement substantial--Case is to be proved against petitioner in accordance with law--Trial is likely to take time--Fact that the case is based primarily on documentary evidence and chances of petitioner tempering with same are not there--Petitioner admitted to bail. (Para 6)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438-
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M)
Sandeep Jindal & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Singh Arya, DAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 and 406--Anticipatory bail--Cheating--Petitioners already joined investigation--They are not required for custodial interrogation--No allegations by state that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts in court if released on bail--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 9)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M)
Sandeep Jindal & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Singh Arya, DAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 and 406--Anticipatory bail--Cheating--Petitioners already joined investigation--They are not required for custodial interrogation--No allegations by state that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts in court if released on bail--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 9)
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S.156(3)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 406, 323, 506--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.401--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Revision--Compromise--Parties settled matter between themselves--Complainant no more interested in prosecuting petitioner/accused--He prayed for extension of necessary benefit to petitioner on account of an amicable settlement--Under these circumstances permission granted to complainant to compound offence with petitioner/accused--Petitioner/accused acquitted of charge.; Jasbir Kaur v. Dalbir Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 879
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 and 506--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.482--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807
S.482--Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, S. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
S.401--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Revision--Compromise--Parties settled matter between themselves--Complainant no more interested in prosecuting petitioner/accused--He prayed for extension of necessary benefit to petitioner on account of an amicable settlement--Under these circumstances permission granted to complainant to compound offence with petitioner/accused--Petitioner/accused acquitted of charge.; Jasbir Kaur v. Dalbir Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 879
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 and 506--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.482--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807
S.482--Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, S. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S.156(3)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 406, 323, 506--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.401--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Revision--Compromise--Parties settled matter between themselves--Complainant no more interested in prosecuting petitioner/accused--He prayed for extension of necessary benefit to petitioner on account of an amicable settlement--Under these circumstances permission granted to complainant to compound offence with petitioner/accused--Petitioner/accused acquitted of charge.; Jasbir Kaur v. Dalbir Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 879
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 and 506--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.482--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807
S.482--Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, S. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
S.401--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Revision--Compromise--Parties settled matter between themselves--Complainant no more interested in prosecuting petitioner/accused--He prayed for extension of necessary benefit to petitioner on account of an amicable settlement--Under these circumstances permission granted to complainant to compound offence with petitioner/accused--Petitioner/accused acquitted of charge.; Jasbir Kaur v. Dalbir Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 879
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 and 506--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.482--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807
S.482--Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, S. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
Friday, June 18, 2010
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.313--Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.--Object--Is to enable accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him--A circumstance about which accused had not been asked to explain cannot be used against him.; Niku v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 790
S.313--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.15--Contraband--Acquittal--Recovery of 5 bags of poppy husk each containing 30 kgs.--Affidavits of carrier of sample parcels as well as MHC with whom case property was deposited was not put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.--Cannot be looked into evidence against him--Link evidence is missing--Appellant acquitted.; Niku v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 790
S.378(4)--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Appeal against acquittal--Leave to file--Dishonour of Cheque--Security Cheque--There was no legal liability at time of issuance of cheque by accused in favour of complainant--Cheque given as security to get sale deed executed--Accused is not liable under provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act--Trial Court given sound reasons while acquitting accused--No ground made out to grant leave to file an appeal against acquittal.; Satinder Kumar v. Gurvinder Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 724
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 201, 120-B & 34--Bail--Murder--First version by way of DDR does not implicate anybody--FIR lodged after delay of 10 days--Extra judicial confession made by petitioner, wife of deceased after 7 months of lodging FIR--Two of accused left out by prosecution from array of accused--As per medico legal report deceased used to consumption of heavy quantity of alcohol--No definite opinion in regard to any homicidal act--None of witnesses recorded--Bail granted.; Sanjay & Gandhi v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 760
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B--Arms Act,1959 S.25 & 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Petitioners not attributed any role in FIR--However in statement before trial Court they have alleged to have armed with weapon--But no injury caused by them--Keeping in view role attributed to petitioners in occurrence and fact that they have been in custody for last one year and two months and also that trial in the case is likely to take time it would be just expedient to grant concession of bail.; Harphool Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 736
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323/506--Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(x) (xi)--Quashing of complaint--Allegations of commission of offence under S.C. and S.T. are not made out--Complaint filed not for reason that petitioner has committed an offence rather with some ulterior motive--There was some dispute in regard to path--Both sides were trying to take possession of that path--In malafide exercise Criminal complaint filed so as to pressurize petitioner in matter of possession of the path--This is when on repeated complaints and three enquiries investigation agency concluded that no offence under S.C. and S.T. Act had been committed--Factum of conclusion drawn by police authorities or enquires intentionally not disclosed in complaint--In such circumstance, continuance of these proceedings shall result in abuse of process of Court--Complaint quashed.; Dilbagh Singh & Ors. v. Sukhjinder Kaur, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 729
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B--Quashing--Cheating--Allegation that accused no. 1 to 6 in collusion with each other got sale deed executed and registered in favour of accused no.2 in regard to land that had already gifted to complainant and her son by her father-in-law--Accused no.2 witnessed sale deeds although he was in full knowledge of gift deeds since time of their execution and registration--Considering nature of allegations, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit to disprove facts alleged in complaint--Petitioner would have right to lead evidence in defence to negate allegations--In view of disputed facts no grounds for quashing impugned complaint and summoning order made out.; Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 746
S.313--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.15--Contraband--Acquittal--Recovery of 5 bags of poppy husk each containing 30 kgs.--Affidavits of carrier of sample parcels as well as MHC with whom case property was deposited was not put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.--Cannot be looked into evidence against him--Link evidence is missing--Appellant acquitted.; Niku v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 790
S.378(4)--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Appeal against acquittal--Leave to file--Dishonour of Cheque--Security Cheque--There was no legal liability at time of issuance of cheque by accused in favour of complainant--Cheque given as security to get sale deed executed--Accused is not liable under provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act--Trial Court given sound reasons while acquitting accused--No ground made out to grant leave to file an appeal against acquittal.; Satinder Kumar v. Gurvinder Singh, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 724
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 201, 120-B & 34--Bail--Murder--First version by way of DDR does not implicate anybody--FIR lodged after delay of 10 days--Extra judicial confession made by petitioner, wife of deceased after 7 months of lodging FIR--Two of accused left out by prosecution from array of accused--As per medico legal report deceased used to consumption of heavy quantity of alcohol--No definite opinion in regard to any homicidal act--None of witnesses recorded--Bail granted.; Sanjay & Gandhi v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 760
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B--Arms Act,1959 S.25 & 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Petitioners not attributed any role in FIR--However in statement before trial Court they have alleged to have armed with weapon--But no injury caused by them--Keeping in view role attributed to petitioners in occurrence and fact that they have been in custody for last one year and two months and also that trial in the case is likely to take time it would be just expedient to grant concession of bail.; Harphool Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 736
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323/506--Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(x) (xi)--Quashing of complaint--Allegations of commission of offence under S.C. and S.T. are not made out--Complaint filed not for reason that petitioner has committed an offence rather with some ulterior motive--There was some dispute in regard to path--Both sides were trying to take possession of that path--In malafide exercise Criminal complaint filed so as to pressurize petitioner in matter of possession of the path--This is when on repeated complaints and three enquiries investigation agency concluded that no offence under S.C. and S.T. Act had been committed--Factum of conclusion drawn by police authorities or enquires intentionally not disclosed in complaint--In such circumstance, continuance of these proceedings shall result in abuse of process of Court--Complaint quashed.; Dilbagh Singh & Ors. v. Sukhjinder Kaur, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 729
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B--Quashing--Cheating--Allegation that accused no. 1 to 6 in collusion with each other got sale deed executed and registered in favour of accused no.2 in regard to land that had already gifted to complainant and her son by her father-in-law--Accused no.2 witnessed sale deeds although he was in full knowledge of gift deeds since time of their execution and registration--Considering nature of allegations, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit to disprove facts alleged in complaint--Petitioner would have right to lead evidence in defence to negate allegations--In view of disputed facts no grounds for quashing impugned complaint and summoning order made out.; Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 746
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Eye witnesses--Alleged witnesses, brother of deceased and Panch neither accompanied injured to hospital or had gone to report matter to Police Station--Ruqa sent by doctor recorded that unknown injured was brought by driver of offending bus--Sequence of events clearly established that no body witnessed occurrence--No other cogent independent evidence to prove that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner--Accused acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Revision--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Quashing of FIR--Attempt to murder--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Revision--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Quashing of FIR--Attempt to murder--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
Sunday, April 11, 2010
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.154--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 34--FIR--Delay in lodging--Police Station from place of occurrence or residential house where dead body was brought back not more than 2 furlongs--Complainant had access to a car in which injured was first taken to civil hospital and then to hospital to Amritsar and when he died his dead body was brought back during night--During entire night occurrence was neither disclosed to police nor to any Panchayat member--Co-villagers cited to witness in disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons of offence were in village--In such circumstances, conduct of witnesses in lodging FIR after such a delay is quite unnatural which raises legitimate inference that prosecution version is highly doubtful--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.439(2)--Bail--Cancellation of Bail--High Court and also the Court of Session is empowered to order the arrest of a person released on bail for committing him to custody--Power under Section 439(2) is unfettered, though such power has to be exercised judiciously--It is not necessary that the power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised at the instance of the State in case instituted by the State--Complainant is entitled to move such an application he being an aggrieved person and also an important witness in the case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Bail granted on medical report--No material produced that after being granted bail accused is under continuous treatment--During period of 2006-07 there was not serious ailment with petitioner--In July 2007, Aliment of epilepsy was inserted in diagnosis and some tablets were prescribed--There is tempering in register--Fact that bail is procured with fraud is sufficient to recall order of bail--Bail granted to accused by playing fraud cancelled.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 498-A--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations, in the first information report, or complaint taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--Exercise of--
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. ; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.439(2)--Bail--Cancellation of Bail--High Court and also the Court of Session is empowered to order the arrest of a person released on bail for committing him to custody--Power under Section 439(2) is unfettered, though such power has to be exercised judiciously--It is not necessary that the power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised at the instance of the State in case instituted by the State--Complainant is entitled to move such an application he being an aggrieved person and also an important witness in the case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Bail granted on medical report--No material produced that after being granted bail accused is under continuous treatment--During period of 2006-07 there was not serious ailment with petitioner--In July 2007, Aliment of epilepsy was inserted in diagnosis and some tablets were prescribed--There is tempering in register--Fact that bail is procured with fraud is sufficient to recall order of bail--Bail granted to accused by playing fraud cancelled.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 498-A--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations, in the first information report, or complaint taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--Exercise of--
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. ; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008
Purshotam Saini & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Anr
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Petitioner(s).: Mr. PS Sikand, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008
Purshotam Saini & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Anr
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Petitioner(s).: Mr. PS Sikand, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.202--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Summoning of accused--Quashing--Complaint--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.319--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Additional accused--summoning of--Pre-arrest bail--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.438--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Pre-arrest bail--Additional accused--summoning of--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
S.202--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Summoning of accused--Quashing--Complaint--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.319--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Additional accused--summoning of--Pre-arrest bail--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.438--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Pre-arrest bail--Additional accused--summoning of--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Bail--An interim order restraining arrest if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation which cannot at any rate be done under Section 438 of Code
Haryana Rajya Sainik Board… v. Mohan Lal
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 210 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker
Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2008
Parvinderjit Singh
v.
State (U.T. Chandigarh)
{Decided on 03/11/2008}
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail--An interim order restraining arrest if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation which cannot at any rate be done under Section 438 of Code.
(A) Criminal Law--Embezzlement of amount--Anticipatory bail--Prosecution alleged that an amount of Rs. 1.10 crores has been withdrawn from saving account and shares of worth Rs. 1.60 crores have been fraudulently withdrawn from saving/demat account of complainant--Accused contended that allegation are civil in nature and entire case hings on documentary evidence which cannot be tempered--Accused are responsible officers and are willing to assist the investigation--Appellants not to be arrested subject to the condition that they will join investigation--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 406, 420 and 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 4, 19)
(B) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Interim Bail--Legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of Code--An interim order restraining arrest if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation which cannot at any rate be done under Section 438 of Code--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 17)
(C) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Normally a direction should not be issued to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrest for whichever offence whatsoever"--Such "blanket order" should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of unlawful activity--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 15)
(D) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is entitled to plead innocence, since he is not on the date of application for exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks bail--The applicant must show that he has `reason to believe' that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence--It must be founded on reasonable grounds--Mere "fear" is not `belief' for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 15)
(E) Criminal Law--Bail--An order under Section 438 is a device to secure the individual's liberty' it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 15)
(F) Criminal Law--Arrest--Object of--Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes--The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime--There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts--It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality--For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation--The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 41 and 438. (Para 17)
(G) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of a accused in a cognizable offence--An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of Code will amount to interference in investigation which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of Code--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-157, 173 and 438. (Para 17)
------------------
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 210 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker
Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2008
Parvinderjit Singh
v.
State (U.T. Chandigarh)
{Decided on 03/11/2008}
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail--An interim order restraining arrest if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation which cannot at any rate be done under Section 438 of Code.
(A) Criminal Law--Embezzlement of amount--Anticipatory bail--Prosecution alleged that an amount of Rs. 1.10 crores has been withdrawn from saving account and shares of worth Rs. 1.60 crores have been fraudulently withdrawn from saving/demat account of complainant--Accused contended that allegation are civil in nature and entire case hings on documentary evidence which cannot be tempered--Accused are responsible officers and are willing to assist the investigation--Appellants not to be arrested subject to the condition that they will join investigation--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 406, 420 and 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 4, 19)
(B) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Interim Bail--Legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of Code--An interim order restraining arrest if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation which cannot at any rate be done under Section 438 of Code--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 17)
(C) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Normally a direction should not be issued to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrest for whichever offence whatsoever"--Such "blanket order" should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of unlawful activity--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 15)
(D) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is entitled to plead innocence, since he is not on the date of application for exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks bail--The applicant must show that he has `reason to believe' that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence--It must be founded on reasonable grounds--Mere "fear" is not `belief' for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 15)
(E) Criminal Law--Bail--An order under Section 438 is a device to secure the individual's liberty' it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438. (Para 15)
(F) Criminal Law--Arrest--Object of--Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes--The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime--There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts--It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality--For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation--The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 41 and 438. (Para 17)
(G) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of a accused in a cognizable offence--An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of Code will amount to interference in investigation which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of Code--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-157, 173 and 438. (Para 17)
------------------
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439
Satgur Singh v. State of Punjab
53 -
Amarjit Singh alias Ginda v. State of Punjab
54 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-35109 of 2009
Amarjit Singh alias Ginda
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 29/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Navkiran Singh and Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocates.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323, 324, 307, 148 & 149--Bail--Charges in case not framed--Injuries on person of complainant opined to be simple in nature--Other co-accused granted bail--Keeping in view nature of injuries attributed to petitioners and period they were in custody petitioners are entitled to concession of bail. (P.3 & 4)
--------------
Varinder Kumar alias Vicky & Anr. v. State of Punjab
55 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36674 of 2009
Varinder Kumar alias Vicky & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 29/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.364 & 34--Kidnapping--Bail--Charge in case framed--Case fixed for prosecution evidence--Trial would take long time to conclude--Main accused granted bail on 18.4.2009--Petitioners are in custody since 23.11.2009--Bail granted.
----------------
53 -
Amarjit Singh alias Ginda v. State of Punjab
54 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-35109 of 2009
Amarjit Singh alias Ginda
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 29/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Navkiran Singh and Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocates.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323, 324, 307, 148 & 149--Bail--Charges in case not framed--Injuries on person of complainant opined to be simple in nature--Other co-accused granted bail--Keeping in view nature of injuries attributed to petitioners and period they were in custody petitioners are entitled to concession of bail. (P.3 & 4)
--------------
Varinder Kumar alias Vicky & Anr. v. State of Punjab
55 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36674 of 2009
Varinder Kumar alias Vicky & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 29/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.364 & 34--Kidnapping--Bail--Charge in case framed--Case fixed for prosecution evidence--Trial would take long time to conclude--Main accused granted bail on 18.4.2009--Petitioners are in custody since 23.11.2009--Bail granted.
----------------
Bail--Attempt to murder--Injury on foot of complainant by firing shot--Challan is filed and charges are framed
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-32666 of 2009
Satgur Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Arms Act, S.25--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Attempt to murder--Injury on foot of complainant by firing shot--Challan is filed and charges are framed--Petitioner in custody since 16.9.2009--Trial in case to take time--Prosecution is to establish whether petitioner had intention to commit offence of murder--Keeping in view the fact that the injury is attributed to the complainant on the foot; besides, it is simple in nature as also the fact that no empties of the shots said to have been fired have been recovered, it would be just and expedient if the petitioner is admitted to bail. (P.4)
----------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-32666 of 2009
Satgur Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Arms Act, S.25--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Attempt to murder--Injury on foot of complainant by firing shot--Challan is filed and charges are framed--Petitioner in custody since 16.9.2009--Trial in case to take time--Prosecution is to establish whether petitioner had intention to commit offence of murder--Keeping in view the fact that the injury is attributed to the complainant on the foot; besides, it is simple in nature as also the fact that no empties of the shots said to have been fired have been recovered, it would be just and expedient if the petitioner is admitted to bail. (P.4)
----------------
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Quashing of FIR--Cheating--On ground that private complaint on basis of same facts and civil proceedings are also pending regarding same dispute
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-1696 of 2010(O&M)
Bhim Sen
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 & 210--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 420 & 120-B--Quashing of FIR--Cheating--On ground that private complaint on basis of same facts and civil proceedings are also pending regarding same dispute--No prayer made for Quashment of complaint--Held, that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the enquiry or trial held by him that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of the enquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate is to stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and is to call for the report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation--If a report is made by the investigating officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate is required to enquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on the police report--Therefore, there is no ground for quashment of the FIR--In case the application is made by the petitioner--Magistrate is to comply with the provisions of 210 Cr.P.C., thereafter, both the cases are to be tried as if instituted on police report. (P.2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-1696 of 2010(O&M)
Bhim Sen
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 & 210--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 420 & 120-B--Quashing of FIR--Cheating--On ground that private complaint on basis of same facts and civil proceedings are also pending regarding same dispute--No prayer made for Quashment of complaint--Held, that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the enquiry or trial held by him that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of the enquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate is to stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and is to call for the report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation--If a report is made by the investigating officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate is required to enquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on the police report--Therefore, there is no ground for quashment of the FIR--In case the application is made by the petitioner--Magistrate is to comply with the provisions of 210 Cr.P.C., thereafter, both the cases are to be tried as if instituted on police report. (P.2)
Thursday, March 11, 2010
No Criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is singed.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Criminal Misc. No. 37787 of 2009 in Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000
Harjinder Singh & Ors.
v.
State of U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shushma Chopra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Review--No Criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is singed.
Accident--Motor accident case--Whether compoundable--Held-NO--Composition of such offences would be against public policy.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.362--Recalling of order--No Court once it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. (P.5)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 & 482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Motor accident case--Whether compoundable--Held--NO--On account of rash and negligent driving a valuable life of 17 years old boy cut short--Keeping in view nature and seriousness of offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC, the parliament did not make the same compoundable--Composition of such offences would be against public policy. (P.6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Criminal Misc. No. 37787 of 2009 in Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000
Harjinder Singh & Ors.
v.
State of U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shushma Chopra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Review--No Criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is singed.
Accident--Motor accident case--Whether compoundable--Held-NO--Composition of such offences would be against public policy.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.362--Recalling of order--No Court once it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. (P.5)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 & 482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Motor accident case--Whether compoundable--Held--NO--On account of rash and negligent driving a valuable life of 17 years old boy cut short--Keeping in view nature and seriousness of offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC, the parliament did not make the same compoundable--Composition of such offences would be against public policy. (P.6)
Anticipatory/Prearrest bail--Hurt--Four injuries on person of complainant--All injuries attributed to petitioners simple in nature
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-34047 of 2009
Jagdeep Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 13/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326, 323 & 34--Anticipatory/Prearrest bail--Hurt--Four injuries on person of complainant--All injuries attributed to petitioners simple in nature--One injury attributed to non-petitioner is grievous--Petitioners joined investigation--Weapons they were carrying have been recovered--They are not required for purpose of custodial interrogation--Interim bail granted made absolute. (P.3, 4 & 5)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-34047 of 2009
Jagdeep Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 13/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326, 323 & 34--Anticipatory/Prearrest bail--Hurt--Four injuries on person of complainant--All injuries attributed to petitioners simple in nature--One injury attributed to non-petitioner is grievous--Petitioners joined investigation--Weapons they were carrying have been recovered--They are not required for purpose of custodial interrogation--Interim bail granted made absolute. (P.3, 4 & 5)
Facts cannot be disproved while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Criminal Misc. No.13862-M of 2009
Kulwnder Singh & Anr.
V.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 12/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. MS Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.417, 420, 494, 495, 496 & 120-B--Quashing of FIR--Cheating--Marrying again during lifetime of husband--Concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted--Statement of petitioners by way of affidavit that they did not know about factum of first marriage of their real sister cannot be accepted--Incriminating material has been collected against petitioners--Facts cannot be disproved while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482--FIR not liable to be quashed. (P.8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Criminal Misc. No.13862-M of 2009
Kulwnder Singh & Anr.
V.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 12/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. MS Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.417, 420, 494, 495, 496 & 120-B--Quashing of FIR--Cheating--Marrying again during lifetime of husband--Concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted--Statement of petitioners by way of affidavit that they did not know about factum of first marriage of their real sister cannot be accepted--Incriminating material has been collected against petitioners--Facts cannot be disproved while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482--FIR not liable to be quashed. (P.8)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)