Santra Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 September, 2008

CWP No. 13222 of 2008                                    (1)


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                      CWP No. 13222 of 2008
                                      Date of Decision:3.9.2008


Santra Devi                                       ......Petitioner

              Versus

State of Haryana and others                       .....Respondents


Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA


Present:      Shri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The petitioner has sought compensation on account of death

of her son allegedly on account of excesses during the policy custody.

Earlier, the petitioner filed a petition bearing Crl. Misc.

38572-M of 2005, wherein this Court directed the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jind, to enquire into the circumstances of the death of the

deceased and submit the report. It is in pursuance of the said order of

this Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, has given his report on

12.6.2007 finding that the deceased died a mysterious death and the

circumstances point out towards the Police excesses committed upon the

deceased during the custodial interrogation. It is on the basis of the said

report, the petitioner has sought compensation from this Court by

invoking the writ jurisdiction.

Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition No. 19536 of

2006, which was disposed of on 8.12.2006 relegating the petitioner to

seek her remedy before the Civil Court.

CWP No. 13222 of 2008 (2)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that after

the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, this Court on 21.8.2008, has

referred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the

opinion that once the writ petition claiming compensation was disposed

of with liberty to seek remedy from the Civil Court, the present writ

petition is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, wishes to

withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an application in

Crl. Misc. No. 38572-M of 2005 so as to seek compensation on account

of the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in terms of the orders

passed by this Court in the said case.

In view of the above, we dismiss the present writ petition as

withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy in accordance

with law.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

03-09-2008
dk/ds