CRM No. M-46336 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. 46336 of 2007
Date of decision: 14.01.2009
Jasmer Singh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajan Gupta, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits inter alia that
the complaint in question has been instituted only as a counter blast to
certain earlier litigation pending between the parties. The detail of the
litigation has been enumerated in the petition. He further submits that it
is only with a view to settle personal vendetta that the present complaint
has been lodged in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat.
Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioners have been summoned.
Since all the averments made in the present petition are
factual in nature and can be decided only after the evidence is led, the
matter cannot be decided under inherent jurisdiction of this court. The
contentions raised by the petitioners can be gone into by the trial court
at the time, the evidence is led before it. I, therefore, find no ground to
interfere in the inherit jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
CRM No. M-46336 of 2007 2
petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that
petitioner No.2 is serving in the Army and is at present posted in some
operational area. He, therefore, prays that his personal appearance
during the trial be exempted.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that
personal appearance of petitioner No.2 before the trial court shall
remain exempted except on those dates when it is required for the
purpose of the trial. The trial court will be at liberty to summon
petitioner No.2 as and when required by it.
Disposed of.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
January 14, 2009
‘rajpal’