Ved Parkash v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-5342 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2017 Ved Parkash

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for entrusting the investigation/enquiry of the complaints submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 dated 22.04.2016 and subsequent complaints to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and for taking action against the culprits by lodging the FIR against them etc. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that earlier, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to look into the complaint submitted by the petitioner and to take action including registration of FIR and for handing over investigation/enquiry to some independent agency. That petition has Vineet Gulati 2017.02.22 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh already been decided by this Court on 31.05.2016 and a direction was given

CRM No.M-5342 of 2017 -2to respondent No.3-Haryana State Vigilance Bureau to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in his representation and if some substance is found, then to take appropriate action in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. When once the petition on the same ground has already been decided, therefore, there is no question to entertain the second petition on the same grounds. This Court has already given the direction to look into the representation Annexure P-9 in that case. Now, there is nothing on the record as to what order has been passed by the competent authority on that representation. No copy of that order, if any, has been placed on the record. If no order has been passed, then the remedy lies to enforce order dated 31.05.2016 passed by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, I find that second petition on the same grounds is not maintainable when earlier, final order has been passed and direction etc. has already been given. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

February 17, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.02.22 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh