SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3927

R.M.LODHA, ANIL R.DAVE, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Gian Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:P.P. Malhotra, ASG, P.P. Rao, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, V. Giri, Sr. Advocates, Rajiv Kataria (For M/s. Delhi Law Chambers), P. Parmeswaran, Rajiv Nanda, T.A. Khan, Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Ms. Priyanka Mathur, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B.K. Satija, Sameer Sodhi, Amit Bhandari, Ashok Jain, Pankaj Jain, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Suryanarayana Singh, Ms. Yashoda Sharma, Sushil Karanjkar, Nikhilesh Ranganadhan, Ms. Richa Bharadwaj, V. Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Ms. Jyoti Prashar, Yasir Rauf, Vishwaaman Kandwal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Sunil Kumar Verma, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Praveen Swarup, Nikhil Jain, Atishi Dipankar, Manu Beri, Ashish Agarwal, Yash Pal Dhingra, Deepak Dhingra, Partha Sil, Rajesh Tyagi, Anil Kumar Bakshi, Pawan Kumar, Sheel Kumar, Ravi Bassi, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

R.M. LODHA, J

1. When the special leave petition in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another came up for hearing, a two-Judge Bench (Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.) doubted the correctness of the decisions of this Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another [2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2008) 9 SCC 677] and Manoj Sharma v. State and others [2008) 16 SCC 1] and referred the matter to a larger Bench. The reference order reads as follows :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the learned Magistrate. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. While his appeal was pending, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, which, according to the learned counsel, was directed to be taken up along with the main appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compounding the offence. That petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the High Court by its impugne


















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top