12.2009 Amrik Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 308, 323, 324
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 18(1)
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. .... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the petitioner in terms thereof in a case registered vide FIR No.200 dated 25.12.2007 under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC, at Police Station Qadian. This Court on 4.3.2008 had noticed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier the petitioners were booked under Sections 324/323/34 IPC but subsequently after the opinion of the doctor had been obtained the offence under Section 308 IPC was added. This Court thereafter granted the interim protection to the petitioners subject to their joining the investigation Crl. Misc. No.M-5488 of 2008 (O&M) -2- and also directed them to join the investigation on 15.3.2008 at 10 a.m.
It transpires from the record that despite the orders of this Court the petitioners had been arrested by SI Gurmit Singh whereupon this Court was constrained to order an inquiry into the matter which was conducted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, who concluded that the petitioners had been arrested in breach of the order granted by this Court. On 3.9.2009 the matter was referred to a Division Bench as the Court was convinced that prima facie SI Gurmit Singh had committed a criminal contempt and he was liable to be proceeded under Section 18(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in so far as the prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is concerned that may be answered in favour of the petitioners for the reason that they have joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer which fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State on instructions from HC Balwinder Singh.
Having regard to the aforesaid when the petitioners have joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and noticing the contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that initially they had been granted the concession of bail but subsequently on the addition of offence under Section 308 IPC to the already existing offences arrayed against the them and which concession the petitioners have not abused, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be Crl. Misc. No.M-5488 of 2008 (O&M) -3- accepted. Consequently, the interim directions dated 4.3.2008 are hereby made absolute till the filing of the challan subject to the condition that the petitioners continue to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. In so far as the matter regarding initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are concerned, the office is directed to number the petition as Criminal Contempt Petition and post the matter before the Division Bench for appropriate proceedings. Disposed of. Pending Crl. Misc. also stand disposed of.
14.12.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 438, 438(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 308, 323, 324; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 18(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 14 Dec 2009. The bench was MAHESH GROVER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.