← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/16932/2012dismissed

Pt Shiv Kumar Sharma & ANR v. State Of Punjab & ORS

2016-04-26Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.05 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16932 of 2012 (O&M) [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.16932 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:26.04.2016 Pt. Shiv Kumar Sharma and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kumar Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed for quashing the order dated 26.04.2012 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar.

The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of CRM No.M-26804 of 2011 titled as "Pt. Shiv Kumar Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab and others", which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2012, directing respondent No.2 to consider the grievance raised by the petitioners in their complaint dated 24.08.2011, dispassionately and expeditiously, and to pass an appropriate order thereon, as warranted by law. Thereafter, respondent No.2, in compliance of the

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.05 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16932 of 2012 (O&M) [ 2 ] ***** aforesaid order, passed the impugned order in detail and filed the complaint made by the petitioners.

However, the order dated 14.02.2012 was started by this Court while observing that "the petitioners fairly states that the remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has not been availed by the petitioners so far". After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances argued in detail before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this case for upsetting the impugned order Annexure P-9 but the petitioners can still avail any other remedy, as they may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances, available to them.

Dismissed.

April 26, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge