Ex.Ct/Gd Bharosi Lal Service No. ... vs Union Of India And Others on 30 August, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ex.Ct/Gd Bharosi Lal Service No. ... vs Union Of India And Others on 30 August, 2012

Bench: Ranjit Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2002
                      Date of decision : 30.08.2012

Ex.CT/GD Bharosi Lal Service No. 960090245

                                                             .....Petitioner

                           VERSUS


Union of India and others

                                                              ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:     Mr. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner, who was working as Constable GD in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBTF for short) was tried by Summary Force Court (SFC for short) for two offences alleged against him under Sections 26 and 43 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act).

Allegations against the petitioner were for committing an unbecoming conduct by molesting a civil woman namely Smt. Naseema near his duty point. The second charge alleged against him was violation of good order and discipline relating to the same incident of molestation. The incident took place at Banihal in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Concededly, the petitioner was tried at Banihal by Commandant Battalion 22 I.T.B.P. The Head Quarters of this Battalion was in District Jalandhar. Except that there is no Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2002 2 other cause or reason for which jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. Mere location of Battalion Head Quarter under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would not be a part of bundle of cause of action enabling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of writ. The offence took place in Jammu and Kashmir, the trial took place at Banihal in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, entire cause of action thus has arisen in the territory of State of Jammu and Kashmir. Apparently, no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner would be at liberty to approach any Court of competent jurisdiction to challenge the proceedings of Summary Force Court.

August 30, 2012                               ( RANJIT SINGH )
reena                                              JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court