Author: Vejayalakshmi Puli
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Sankar Podder v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: C.R.R. 508 of 2017
Bench: Justice Asha Arora
Date: November 28, 2018.
The petitioner seeks to quash the chargesheet no. 110 of 2013 dated 31/5/2013 under Section 4D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 pending before Judicial Magistrate at Hooghly. Briefly the case being the petitioner was carrying on business under the name M/S Poddar Brickfield with a valid license and paid the extraction fee to the office of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Balagarh. The contention arose when a written complaint was filed against the petitioner stating that he had carried on unauthorised business violating the provisions under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which was termed an offence under Section 4D of the same act. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the provisions mentioned were in violation of Article 245 and 246 of the Indian constitution read with Section 2 of the mines and minerals act, 1957. The counsel for the state on the contrary stated that the subject matter “land” falls under the state list whereas “mines” fell under the union list. The same was upheld in Bengal Brickfields Owners’ Association and Others versus State of West Bengal and others, 2006(3) CHN 28. Taking into consideration the given statements and arguments, the counsel under the guidance of J. Arora
held that application be dismissed.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
2. Raghbir Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr.
Case No: CRM-M-5383-2015
Bench: Justice Surinder Gupta
Date: October 16, 2018.
The petitioner in the mentioned case seeks to quash the complaint made under Section 182 IPC by invoking Section 482 CrPc registered at the Police Station of Patiala. Prior to this, the petitioner had filed a complaint against Kashmir Singh & family had taken a loan of Rs 2,50,000 from him to send his sister’s son Sukhwinder abroad. On investigation by the DSP of that district, the allegations charged were found to be false and thereafter arose proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC by Kashmir Singh. The matter was further brought before the Superintendent of Police and it was held that the allegations were correct and accordingly offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC was charged against the accused Kashmir & family. Taking into view, the above circumstances, the counsel under the verdict of J. Gupta passed the order quashing all proceedings and consequences arising of Section 182 IPC as it is a sheer misuse of process of court.
3. KEHAR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC
Case No: CRM-A-46-MA-2016 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Kuldip Singh
Date: October 29, 2018.
The petitioner in this case, seeks for grant of leave to appeal against an earlier order passed by the Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Briefly, the case revolved around the investigation of the Complainant, Kehar Singh’s missing son, Sarabjit Singh who was to return from Andhra Pradesh after harvesting wheat crops. Continuous updates of his location were being provided to his father and once the complainant’s son reached Morinda, he availed an auto, driven by Jagjit Singh who was to drop him off at Samana Kalan village. A statement by the auto driver recorded was that Sarabjit had gotten of at Kinaur Bus Stand and was accompanied by his friends Harpreet Singh and Gang. Since the son had not returned till next morning, the complainant had gone in search of him visiting both Jagjit and Harpreet’s houses with varying statement on his son’s whereabouts. While on the way to lodge an FIR, the complainant saw a police gathering enroute and on search, The missing son’s dead body along with his belongings were discovered in a nearby well following which immediate police investigation began. The suspects being Harpreet and Gang were taken into custody as a statement recorded by the complainant revealed that a rift during election between the family of the accused and complainants followed by threats were the reason for his son’s death. Since there was no direct evidence and circumstantial evidence such as the brickbat found in possession of the accused Harpreet as well as the motive to murder could not be proved, the learned counsel under J. Singh based on the evidence gathered passed the order upholding the order of Sessions court and therefore the prayer to appeal was not granted. Accordingly the petition was dismissed.
4. Gulab v. State Of Haryana
Case No: CRM-M-45896-2018
Bench: Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
Date: October 26, 2018.
The petitioner in the present case seeks to obtain grant for regular bail under Section 439 CrPc for charges under Section 148, 149, 365, 323, 342, 452 IPC registered at the Bhiwani Police Station. The case in brief was that the complainant Deepak, lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others on grounds of kidnapping him and later assaulting him in one of the houses of the accused persons at a village in Kheri. The counsel for the petitioner argued that prior to the present FIR, there had been 2 filed against the complainant Deepak on account of harassment of female members of the family of the petitioners. The concerned state counsel carried on an investigation under the guidance of ASI Satyapal and came to a conclusion that upon complete investigation, the petitioners were not involved in any other case. The learned counsel under the verdict of J. Sangwan stated that since the petition be allowed and he be released in regular bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
5. JASWINDER SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Case No: Cr. Misc. M- 38279-2017 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Jaishree Thakur
Date: October 29, 2018.
The present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with 482 CrPc passed by JMIC Panipat under Sections 34, 323, 498A, 304B for grant of bail. The case briefly was that the petitioner’s daughter was subject to cruelty by the Respondent. He was also in a relationship with one, Shaifali and this was objected to by his wife post few days, the wife went missing and investigation on the husband had been undertaken without taking into consideration objections raised by the petitioner and therefore he contended that a fresh investigation should be sought to and Section 304B should be invoked. This was upheld in Neeru Yadav v. State of UP(2014) 16 SCC 508. The counsel on behalf of the accused respondent stated that all possible effort had been made in location his wife, Mandeep Kaur by constituting a Special Investigation Team to putting up public notices of her disappearance. He also claimed to have lodged a complaint for the same and had undertaken a polygraphic test to prove the same. The court therefore looking into the present matter and records passed a verdict under J. Thakur to grant bail to the respondent leaving the question of invoking Section 304B in case the body of the wife is found. The petition thus stood disposed.
About the Author: Vejayalakshmi is 2017-22 Batch student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
Disclaimer: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.