Iqbal Singh Khangura v. State Of Punjab And Another

 



 
    
   
 

   

 !"#"

!$% & %  '%$

&$(

  "% ) 




  


 !"#"$%

%*"" +*,

% % %& - .

%+*,

%%) /  % )#$0 %+ *1&$(



&

 -" ") )%%%$%    "
 
%0 &%$%+ 2"%  %3
%&
456! "!7  /

  %! %$%  +* &
2    &
 

%5

&

 6  % 8$" $%

!. $  $ )%! %! "%%0  9%:+  "       !  % 

 0 %% !  .  % %) / 0)  .

0; 



" 6"%  % ) /  "% 0: % )%0   ;
 "

:0  % "0 %% !-" $):

:

"' !- ()$%+."% "0

%0 "0 %) / 

%

$   "

0 " %) /  % $%%:+
   

-"%  %+%) /  ))% )$ , % %+."%, " 0< % 

"  %0"%%"% 0:%!

%! " 0<

  %, %) /  $%%: 0, -%   %+ $% "!$0 !%

,-") %%$ ( "0) :

%) / ) "%%)

% )% !,%0 "=

0 >?+@%0"%%% $: "$-") %  "% %! !++@".

! "%0

%0 "0   < ?  +%) / , "%0

%0 "0

 ".

 .  )  8 %$% % inter alia  

 )%0 %: $%:.

$   )$

 "=4  $)%0
$% 
 

      

!

!  "#" / $%  ? &
0 $ !

 %

 %$ 0 .%:  % 

"7$% "%+ ) %  %"

, % : "

%!,($!0 

    )   :  "   %  *     
$% +  8$"  &%  :+%) / "

 :)% "% 
  ;

 

  +""   ) )% 7 :+ %!%)   ! :%) / "

$%%
 "%%+

"%

 .$ %  &' ()

&  *+  

"

# &!!

#+%0 )%$  



    8 %$%%) / $ 0

%+ , "") % +"

$)%) /  0 %%:!"0 %% $% 
 , -") %%$ ("%0) :

" %%,
 

:. ""%

, +-% =

"

%) / +0 !0:%0"% $: "$
  ."%

6 "%0

%0 "0

 ? = ,!)%$ "%%+ )%

" "   )%%%  $%      
%&
  6!  "!    2$)% 5*)%$  "%%

 2*A$%&5)  :

"
$% +



"% )  "0 .

. "% ..

" %

6 ") % " % % 
$% 

 % 

%   . $,) $%  
%&
." "!%$

6

%.% ,



"% 

* . B$! " "=4  $)%0
$% , 


 

&       

!

!  #-#+) 6! "%$!"

B$  ( :#$0 %+"

) . "10. In & .   ( *

-  ./0

!  1!!

 - &!!

3 . , the Madras High Court observed that a person who invokes Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 should honestly come before the Court raising all the pleas available to him at that point of time and he is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment pleas. It was further observed that there may be a change of circumstances during the course of criminal proceedings which would give scope for the person aggrieved to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, but when he is posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he cannot withhold part of it for the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the same relief.

11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted."

   ,. "

%"

. "% . "% 6! "!7 2$)% 5. " %

6 ") %

" % % 
$% . "%

 ., 


 4

5 

% + ")% ) 0  &!  0 $  ))

25+    :+  "

  

 )  =.,%+ "! %,"%

,"

 %$

A)%) "
$%  "0%  " +  0 :

)%($ % -" % % 
$% %  )%. %

 % : .-") %"

 

 % % 

") % " % % 
$%

))%)%



! '

( 

)* 

C" "%) 6!@%   D@/ C" "%%)%

 D@/