← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26380/2015dismissed

Sandeep Dhingra v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2017-03-08Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-26380 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 08, 2017 Sandeep Dhingra

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.R.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Vineet Gulati 2017.03.15 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh State counsel and have gone through the record.

CRM No.M-26380 of 2015 -2From the record, I find that an application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the applicant-complainant for bringing the attested copies of bail application. Learned JMIC, SAS Nagar vide order dated 03.07.2015, dismissed the application by holding that nothing has been shown as to how the bringing on record of said bail applications filed by the accused would be relevant to the just decision of the case. I have gone through the application which was filed before the lower Court. The perusal of the application shows that nothing has been mentioned as to how the bail applications are relevant to the controversy in dispute and how these bail applications are necessary and essential for the just decision of the case.

It is simply stated in the application that accused Satbir Singh and Narinder Singh filed respective bail applications before the High Court and had made certain pleadings in the said bail applications and the applicant intends to bring the attested copies of the bail applications by way of additional evidence. The application filed by the applicantpetitioner is vague and there is nothing in the application that how these documents are necessary for the just decision of the case. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 03.07.2015 passed by learned JMIC, SAS Nagar, Mohali, is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

March 08, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.03.15 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh