Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simarjit Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab on 11 August, 2010
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-27989 of 2009
Date of Decision : August 11, 2010.
Simarjit Singh Sandhu
....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG Punjab.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
The prayer in the present petition, preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 33 dated 24.02.2009 under Sections 457/380/447/511 IPC, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioner only.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner finds mention in the abovementioned FIR, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner alongwith other co accused on the intervening night of July 2/3, 2008 at about 01:00 A.M. broke open the lock of the room where personal costly ornaments, awards, most valuable articles and important documents and photographs were kept by the complainant, namely, Randy Singh Sandhu, which were stolen. Counsel further contends that the petitioner-Simarjit Singh Sandhu was in judicial custody in FIR No. 101 dated 19.05.2008, under Sections 323/324/148/149/326 IPC, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, since 31.05.2008, and was only released on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, Crl. Misc. No. M-27989 of 2009. -2- vide Order dated 31.08.2008 (Annexure-P-3). The petitioner could have been released under this provision of Code of Criminal Procedure only when 90 days stood elapsed and the prosecution failed to present the challan against the petitioner during the said period, as mandated under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. He on this basis contends that the FIR registered, qua petitioner, is totally false and cannot, therefore, be sustained. Accordingly, he prays that the present petition to be allowed and the abovementioned FIR be quashed as regards the petitioner.
Counsel for the State could not dispute the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner.
In the reply filed by respondent-State, the factual assertion as made by the petitioner in his petition with regard to the fact of date of he being in judicial custody and his release has not been disputed.
If that being the position, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, who was in judicial custody, could not have on the intervening night of July 2/3, 2008, broken open the lock of the room and stolen the goods therefrom, as alleged in the FIR No. 33, dated 24.02.2009, by the complainant.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 33, dated 24.02.2009 under Sections 457/380/447/511 IPC, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioner only, stands quashed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 11, 2010.
sjks.