Present:- Mr. N.C. Kinra Advocate Vs. State of Haryana Etc. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1056958
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-19-2012
AppellantPresent:- Mr. N.C. Kinra Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana Etc.
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m-35947 of 2012 [1].in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl. misc. not m-35947 of 2012 date of decision: november 19, 2011 manish ahlawat …..petitioner versus state of haryana etc.…..respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice m.m.s.bedi. -.- present:- mr.n.c.kinra, advocate for the petitioner. -.- m.m.s.bedi, j. (oral) the fir was registered at the instance of petitioner as fir no.254 annexure p-4, under sections 365, 389, 506, 120-b ipc registered at police station shivaji colony, rohtak on the allegation that his wife neelu had been abducted by her maternal uncles with an intention to cause her to be secretly kept at far off place in west bengal and the petitioner was falsely involved in the case on the basis of a recovery of unidentified dead body resembling neelu. it was claimed by the petitioner that he had been falsely implicated in a case fir no.134 of 2007 under sections 364, 498-a, 406, crl. misc. not m-35947 of 2012 [2].34 ipc. a special investigation team deputed to look into the allegations against the petitioner had found the petitioner innocent in said cases. in this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated september 24, 2010 annexure p-7 passed by the judicial magistrate ist class, rohtak accepting the cancellation report in case fir no.254 registered at the instance of the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to file a separate complaint, if so advised. an attempt was made by the petitioner to seek review of the order by moving an application before the judicial magistrate ist class, rohtak but vide order annexure p-9 dated november 10, 2010, the said court has declined the prayer for recalling the order dated september 24, 2010. the revision filed before additional sessions judge was also dismissed on may 8, 2012 vide annexure p-12. the main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have acted illegally in accepting the cancellation report in the criminal case registered at the instance of petitioner. it is claimed that special investigation team constituted by high court in crl.misc. not m- 41857 of 2007 decided on december 5, 2012 should have been directed to look into the allegations of the complaint filed by the petitioner. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. the courts below have safeguarded the right of the petitioner to file a private complaint on the basis of the allegations which form subject matter of fir no.254 of 2009 police station shivaji colony, under sections 365, 389, 506, 120-b ipc, crl. misc. not m-35947 of 2012 [3].while accepting the cancellation report after giving notice to the petitioner. the scope of direction issued by high court on december 5, 2007 vide annexure p-2 in crl. misc. not m-41857 of 2007 cannot be extended to the extent that the special investigation team should look into the allegations of the petitioner in the fir. no ground is made out for exercising jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c.dismissed. however, rights of the petitioner safeguarded by the learned magistrate will not be affected with the dismissal of this petition. november 19, 2011 (m.m.s.bedi) sanjay judge
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M-35947 of 2012 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-35947 of 2012 Date of Decision: November 19, 2011 Manish Ahlawat …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana etc.…..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.

-.- Present:- Mr.N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.

(ORAL) The FIR was registered at the instance of petitioner as FIR No.254 annexure P-4, under Sections 365, 389, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak on the allegation that his wife Neelu had been abducted by her maternal uncles with an intention to cause her to be secretly kept at far off place in West Bengal and the petitioner was falsely involved in the case on the basis of a recovery of unidentified dead body resembling Neelu.

It was claimed by the petitioner that he had been falsely implicated in a case FIR No.134 of 2007 under Sections 364, 498-A, 406, Crl.

Misc.

not M-35947 of 2012 [2].34 IPC.

A Special Investigation Team deputed to look into the allegations against the petitioner had found the petitioner innocent in said cases.

In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 24, 2010 annexure P-7 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak accepting the cancellation report in case FIR No.254 registered at the instance of the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to file a separate complaint, if so advised.

An attempt was made by the petitioner to seek review of the order by moving an application before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak but vide order annexure P-9 dated November 10, 2010, the said Court has declined the prayer for recalling the order dated September 24, 2010.

The revision filed before Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed on May 8, 2012 vide annexure P-12.

The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below have acted illegally in accepting the cancellation report in the criminal case registered at the instance of petitioner.

It is claimed that Special Investigation Team constituted by High Court in Crl.Misc.

not M- 41857 of 2007 decided on December 5, 2012 should have been directed to look into the allegations of the complaint filed by the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of this case.

The Courts below have safeguarded the right of the petitioner to file a private complaint on the basis of the allegations which form subject matter of FIR No.254 of 2009 Police Station Shivaji Colony, under Sections 365, 389, 506, 120-B IPC, Crl.

Misc.

not M-35947 of 2012 [3].while accepting the cancellation report after giving notice to the petitioner.

The scope of direction issued by High Court on December 5, 2007 vide annexure P-2 in Crl.

Misc.

not M-41857 of 2007 cannot be extended to the extent that the Special Investigation Team should look into the allegations of the petitioner in the FIR.

No ground is made out for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Dismissed.

However, rights of the petitioner safeguarded by the learned Magistrate will not be affected with the dismissal of this petition.

November 19, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE