07.2012 Haman Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 380, 458
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: - Mr. Hintender Kansal, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL) This petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of case FIR No.126 dated 18.8.2007 under Sections 458/380 IPC registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it, keeping in view that the petitioner was found innocent in the investigation conducted by Superintendent of Police (Detective), Kapurthala. On 22.1.2010, 9.3.2010, 22.7.2010 and 16.3.2011 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On 22.9.2011, on request of Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate, case was adjourned to 24.2.2012 as Mr. G.S. Kaura, learned arguing counsel for the petitioner was not available. Again on the request of Mr. G.S. Kaura, case was adjourned to 4.5.2012. Again on request of Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Crl. Misc. No. M-22835 of 2009 (O&M) -2- G.S. Kaura, Advocate, case was adjourned to 27.7.2012. Today again, learned arguing counsel for the petitioner is stated to be not available and request for adjournment is made. In this case, reply on behalf of respondent No.1 – State has been filed wherein it is stated that charge has been framed. Further, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Harbans Singh, states that eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. It appears that petitioner is not interested in pursuing the case. Even otherwise, once charge has been framed and witnesses have been examined, present petition does not survive as FIR cannot be quashed at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that finding of innocence no more remains a ground for quashing of the FIR as that stands rejected and charge has been framed. Dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on merits. July 27, 2012 R.S. (Paramjeet Singh) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 380, 458.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 Jul 2012. The bench was PARAMJEET SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.