Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Seema Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 August, 2017

Author: Lisa Gill

Bench: Lisa Gill

CRM No.M-31590 of 2017                                                      [1]




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                   Criminal Misc. No.M- 31590 of 2017(O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: August 29 , 2017.

Seema Devi                             ...... PETITIONER (s)

             Versus

State of Haryana and others            ...... RESPONDENT (s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:     Mr. Harjot Singh Mann, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
                          *****

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner prays for a direction to respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police, Palwal to reinvestigate the matter in FIR No.476 dated 03.09.2016 under Sections 316/328/376/377/498A/506/511 IPC, Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.

It is mentioned in para 8 of this petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the petitioner, that no such or similar petition has been filed earlier before this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

However, it has come to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed CRM No.M-25122 of 2017 (Seema v. State of Haryana and others) seeking transfer of investigation of the case of the abovesaid FIR on the ground that the local police had colluded with the accused, deleted the heinous offences therein and wrongly added Sections 498A/406 IPC and presented the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-09-2017 06:21:07 ::: CRM No.M-31590 of 2017 [2] final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 08.10.2016 in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses ignorance about the filing of the earlier petition as above. It is submitted that this fact was never brought to his notice by the petitioner and the present petition has been filed for reinvestigation.

However, the petitioner cannot be absolved of her responsibility of having mentioned the correct facts before this Court in this petition, which is duly supported by her affidavit.

This petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of `7,000/-.



                                                        ( LISA GILL )
August 29 , 2017.                                           JUDGE
'om'

                    Whether speaking/reasoned:       Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:              Yes/No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 09-09-2017 06:21:08 :::