High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-A/285/2012disposed of

Bhag Singh v. Amir Singh & ORS

2025-11-21Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth3 pages

!"# $

$ Bhag Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

Amir Singh and others . . . Respondent(s) # %&$'' (''

Present:

Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Gurateh Mann, Advocate for the respondents. **** ' ('' )$

*+,

$ Present application has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2012.

$ Criminal Complaint No. 49 (dated 27.10.1999) was filed by Labh Kaur against four accused, namely, Amir Singh, Lakha Singh, Sahab Singh, and Joga Singh. Vide judgment dated 22.04.2010, accused No. 1, Amir Singh, was found guilty of offences under Sections 466 and 471 IPC, whereas the remaining three accused-Lakha Singh, Sahab Singh, and Joga Singh-were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Vide the order of sentence dated 24.04.2010, only Amir Singh was sentenced as follows: rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/9 under Section 466 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/9 under Section 471

IPC. In default of payment of the fine, he was to undergo further imprisonment for one month.

-$ The appeal filed by the convict, Amir Singh, was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.02.2012. Similarly, the appeal filed by the complainant against the other three accused was dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karnal, vide the same judgment. Consequently, CRR990892012 and CRM9A92859MA92012 (the present application) pending before this Court for over 12-13 years.

.$ Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel representing the complainant, Bhag Singh, submitted that Lakha Singh, Sahab Singh, and Joga Singh have already expired during the pendency of the instant application seeking Special Leave to Appeal (CRM9A92859MA92022). In view of their demise, the application is no longer maintainable against the deceased persons and accordingly, it be disposed of qua the now deceased respondents No. 2 to 4. Since Amir Singh has already been convicted, counsel representing applicant9Bhag Singh submits that he will address his submissions in the connected revision petition, i.e., CRR990892012, which has been filed by the convict Amir Singh himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, qua said Amir Singh, the instant application for Special Leave to Appeal be disposed of as not pressed and qua respondents No. 2 to 4, present application is disposed of, as it cannot be continued against the deceased accused.

- 5.

In view of the above, present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

' ('' $