High Courts(1992) 01 P&H CK 0086

Bangsain Singh vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 January 1992 · Citation: (1992) 3 RCR(Criminal) 50

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.B.Garg, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4161-M of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 354 words

J.B. Garg, J.

1.

Gurvinder Kaur has instituted a complaint against Parashotam Singh and few others for offence under Sections 326, 323, 148, 149, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, in the court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali and after recording some evidence the Court passes summoning order on 2621991. Against it, the present petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main plea of the three accused is that there is a challan which has arisen out of FIR No. 55 of 1421989 and if the complaint also proceeds against them, it may be an act of double jeopardy.

2.

While opposing this petition, the learned counsel for Gurvinder Kaur complainant has alleged that she was married with Parshotam Singh accused No. 1 about 21/2 years ago and at 11.00 A.M. on 1121989, the accused caused injuries to her including gandasa injury on her right little finger and that the police has not proceeded against as many as three other accused namely Hardas Kaur, Rajan and Major Singh, who have now been named in the complaint instituted by her and had she not instituted the complaint mentioning the entire occurrence including the names of the three present petitioners. There would have been no remedy open to her to prosecute the real assailants.

3.

During the course of arguments it has transpired that the names of Hardas Kaur, Rajan and Mayor Singh do not find mention in the proceedings under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate Dabwali after recording preliminary evidence has passed the impugned speaking order on 2621991 in which all the accused have been summoned for various offences. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant no interference is called for at this stage. The private complaint can also proceed against such accused in the same court as the evidence now comes on record and for such offences not mentioned in the challan if supported by medical and other evidence. The present petition is, hereby, dismissed.