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 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 19 July, 2017

Author: Hari Pal Verma

Bench: Hari Pal Verma

108.
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                         CRM-M-25434-2017
                         Date of decision:19.07.2017

JARNAIL SINGH                                            .... Petitioner


                                versus


STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR                                 .... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
                    ----

Present:    Ms. Poonam Rani, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.
                                ----

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Petitioner-Jarnail Singh has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a direction to the respondents to further investigate the FIR No.117 dated 01.06.2014 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that in CRM-M- 40373-2014 filed by the petitioner-complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Gurnam Singh-accused, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Pardeep Kumar, Police Station Pinjore, had apprised the Court that after completion of the investigation, the police prepared the untraced report and the same was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula for approval. She has further argued that despite the aforesaid statement made by learned State counsel on 08.02.2017, the untraced report has 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2017 00:31:27 ::: CRM-M-25434-2017 -2- not been submitted so far.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The order dated 08.02.2017 shows that the prayer made by the petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused was declined. So far as the contention of the State counsel that the police has prepared the untraced report and the same has not been submitted to the court till date, the petitioner was required to approach the authorities concerned but instead of approaching the concerned authorities, the petitioner has straightway approached this Court.

There is no recital in the petition that after the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2017, the petitioner has ever approached the police authorities asking them to submit untraced report, if so prepared. Therefore, in these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance by making a detailed representation.




                                               (HARI PAL VERMA)
                                                   JUDGE
19.07.2017
sanjeev

                    Whether speaking/reasoned              Yes/No.
                    Whether Reportable:                    Yes/No.




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2017 00:31:28 :::