“case Is Fixed for Filing Correct Address of the Vs. Ranjit Singh

“case Is Fixed for Filing Correct Address of the vs Ranjit Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 25, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1055798

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1055798
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Apr 25, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

“case Is Fixed for Filing Correct Address of the

Respondent

Ranjit Singh

Excerpt

.....for the petitioner. none for the respondent. **** sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 for quashing of impugned order dated 28.01.2013 (annexure p-8) in complaint no.272 dated 02.09.2012 under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and section 420 of the indian penal code, 1860. heard. impugned order dated 28.01.2013 reads as under:- “case is fixed for filing correct address of the accused by the complainant. as per the report of ahlmad correct address has not been filed. perusal of the file shows that the correct address of the accused has not been filed on previous one occasion as well. it appears that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the present complaint. as such, the present complaint is crm not m-9144 of 2013 (o&m) -2- dismissed under section 204 (4) cr.p.c.file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” thus, the trial court had dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioner was not interested in pursuing the complaint as he had failed to supply the correct address of the respondent. the trial court fell in error, while dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, as the complainant could have been afforded another opportunity to enable him to supply the correct address of the respondent. not in the present petition, respondent has been duly served. in these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to quash the impugned order and direct the trial court to proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law. although in the present petition, service of respondent is complete but none has appeared on his behalf. respondent is working as jail warden in open jail, nabha. accordingly, this petition is allowed. impugned order dated 28.01.2013 is set aside and trial court is directed to proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law. (sabina) judge april 25, 2013 sandeep sethi

Full Judgment

CRM not M-9144 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (259) CRM not M-9144 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:

25. 04.2013.

The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd......Petitioner Versus Ranjit Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of impugned order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure P-8) in complaint No.272 dated 02.09.2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard.

Impugned order dated 28.01.2013 reads as under:- “Case is fixed for filing correct address of the accused by the complainant.

As per the report of Ahlmad correct address has not been filed.

Perusal of the file shows that the correct address of the accused has not been filed on previous one occasion as well.

It appears that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the present complaint.

As such, the present complaint is CRM not M-9144 of 2013 (O&M) -2- dismissed under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C.file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

Thus, the Trial Court had dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioner was not interested in pursuing the complaint as he had failed to supply the correct address of the respondent.

The Trial Court fell in error, while dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, as the complainant could have been afforded another opportunity to enable him to supply the correct address of the respondent.

not in the present petition, respondent has been duly served.

In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to quash the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law.

Although in the present petition, service of respondent is complete but none has appeared on his behalf.

Respondent is working as Jail Warden in Open Jail, Nabha.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Impugned order dated 28.01.2013 is set aside and Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law.

(SABINA) JUDGE April 25, 2013 sandeep sethi

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties “case Is Fixed for Filing Correct Address of the vs Ranjit ... Same Subject Education