Navjot Singh Pandher And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR
!"# $#% #%
$% &%' ! $' ( #%
) !
" # $ $
%&'&() %
*+#),- . %
!#'(#+%/ !"# !#'- . % )%
%
!'(## 0%- .,
.0- $' (
$
* #
2# )% # ( )%%% '% ! 3
%/, $%'%- 14
#%% 5% $ 6
1 %"% '% ! -3.
9$ $, !
9- % :# '(7' )%" %"
' /
:%,;- % # /%%" (<
%)
< ,/
1 %"
!+# % %',
)
, % % /%%" %'% 9
1
=) #% %'%- # % #% /%/, #/ ,, %#-
$%
>%)% ?'% # + ", %/ (%'"# %)
"
# / %
2# )%' (" #%"
#% )#;,,;
<,, /,,;
<## ' #% %'%
)
< )%"
/ '(7',;
" (%# /, #,
1 -
%% <#% # ' #% %)
$%
%' <%+ %'% 9 #%,;
%
> " (' / 2% # %' , /);
%)
2# )%' # ,;
/ ))%)% ", %/ %)
('
-
@
*% ', % )% inter alia #
%)
# , /%%" , % % ,/"
/%%"
>< %- #;
', % /(,;
"#% #'( < '"
%'% 9
% %- '), # ( % %/
2# ')% < %"% %)
#%'"# /, # %
> "
#% ,% ', % )% % )%'"
%% <# #% (, - %)% # # ')% 7' )%
4- <# #)) )%,< %)
2# % (%"
4
< / %% 1
.A'% $4
2# %, )% %% %)%' (,<
"
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission for withdrawing the present petition with liberty to raise all the pleas taken in the present petition at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are father in law and mother in law of the complainant respondent, respectively and both of them are senior citizens and attending trial on each and every date would cause great hardship and inconvenience to them and prays for personal exemption of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 from the trial of the case.
In view of the above, present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
However, in view of the ratio laid down by this court in CRM M25963 2023 titled as '
!, the
+ personal appearance of the No. 1 and 2 before the learned trial Court is ordered to be exempted, subject to the following conditions:
(i) they shall be represented through their counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the proceedings;
(iii) shall not dispute their identity;
(iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel;
(v) shall appear before the Court as and when required; and (vi) any other condition, which the Court below may impose."
! #" %'/ - ')% %
.
< B'" (# >6(, !')%/ "#
$ % &
'('(# #
)*)- )+"
#%'"# B' ! ;
?'/%- / ,,<"
(%
"10. In +
$,-
* +./(#0(( 1 *((2
# +
, the Madras High Court observed that a person who invokes Section 3 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 Cr.P.C., 1973 would not lie in any situ
ation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the indi
vidual 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 Sec
tion Cr.P.C., 1973 though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions un
der Section Cr.P.C., 1973 ignoring this principle would enable an in
genious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another un
der Section Cr.P.C., 1973 irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted."
9 < ' ( - )% /
$"
/,,' )), - ;- #,, )
>< %- <', ,(%;
% ), + )% ))%)% " '%"
'% %,
#"
(% #%( #,, %' A)% ) # /% %, #,, )% <#' ("
)% ' (% #
$
# #
C##% )+"@% D@ C##% %)%(, D@