High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37505/2016dismissed

Jagjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2016-10-25Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-37505 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 25, 2016 Jagjit Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Akshay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Punjab and other respondents for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to hold an enquiry and to take action in accordance with law for taking bribe and to register a criminal case against respondent No.4 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and further for taking appropriate action against the respondent No.4 for confining the son of the petitioner namely Jasdeep Singh etc.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

First of all, I find that when a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the son of the petitioner is still in custody or not, he could not give any specific reply. He also could not give the reply Vineet Gulati 2016.10.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh that whether any FIR was registered against son of Jagjit Singh or whether

CRM No.M-37505 of 2016 -2he is in judicial custody.

The perusal of the record shows that earlier present petitioner Jagjit Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this court and also filed the petition in this Court for not falsely implicating him, which was decided on 28.10.2015. Further, I find that there is no material at this stage on the record to support the averment of the present petitioner. Otherwise also, the petitioner has the remedy to approach learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the above-said relief. The petitioner has also alternative remedy to file criminal complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 392. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be entertained in routine. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

October 25, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.10.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh