Surinder Singh vs R.K.Jaiswal on 12 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs R.K.Jaiswal on 12 August, 2009
C.O.C.P.No.970 of 2009                                               1


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                                   C.O.C.P.No.970 of 2009
                                   Date of Decision:-12.8.2009

Surinder Singh                                       ...Petitioner
                                     Versus

R.K.Jaiswal, SSP Jalandhar                           ...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.M.C.Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):

Vide order dated 17.9.2008, the Senior Superintendent of

Police, Jalandhar was directed by this Court to investigate the case

of FIR No.81 dated 1.5.2007 registered under sections 427 and 304-

A IPC Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. Allegations of the petitioner

in this contempt petition are that despite the aforesaid direction

issued by this Court, no inquiry/investigation was done by the

respondent.

In response to the show cause notice issued to the

respondent, reply dated 8.7.2009 by way of affidavit of R.K.Jaiswal,

IPS, SSP, Jalandhar was filed. Alongwith the reply, an inquiry report

dated 4.11.2008 Annexure R1 was submitted to say that compliance

of the order dated 17.9.2008 has been made.

However, a perusal of the aforesaid inquiry report dated

4.11.2008 showed that after the direction issued by this Court, SSP
C.O.C.P.No.970 of 2009 2

Jalandhar had not investigated the matter independently and has

submitted the aforesaid report on the basis of earlier investigation.

Today an additional affidavit has been filed by

R.K.Jaiswal, IPS, SSP Jalandhar. Alongwith this affidavit, order

(Annexure R1/T) has been filed wherein it has been submitted that a

fresh inquiry/investigation has been made by the aforesaid officer in

FIR No.81 dated 1.5.2007.

Since necessary compliance has been made by the

respondent, I am not inclined to proceed further with this petition.

The petitioner may challenge the aforesaid findings of the

inquiry report (attached as Annexure R1/T with additional affidavit of

the respondent) in accordance with law.

Rule discharged.




                                                   (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
12.8.2009                                                    Judge
AS
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *