Navdeep Kaur Pooni v. State Of Punjab And ANR.
CRM-M-40930 of 2013 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40930 of 2013 Date of Decision: 09.11.2017 Navdeep Kaur Pooni
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 candidly admit that provisions of Section 420 IPC are not attracted in this case. However, offences made out against petitioner are under Sections 417 and 177 IPC and Section 31 of Representation of People Act, 1951, which are non-cognizable.
Learned State counsel submits that though from the allegations in the FIR provisions of Section 420 IPC are not directly attracted but in case petitioner had used two voter cards issued to her at different addresses, she could cast vote at two places, which would have been an offence under the provisions of Representation of People Act. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner had ever exercised her right of vote. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent no. 2, I find no reason to go into details of facts and circumstances of the case. The Jitender Kumar 2017.11.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40930 of 2013 -2FIR could not be registered in this case as no cognizable offence was made out, hence the instant FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings therein is quashed leaving parties to avail all other legal remedies available to them under the law.
Disposed of accordingly.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) November 09, 2017 JUDGE jk Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No Jitender Kumar 2017.11.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH