PANKAJ JAIN
Gurtej Singh Kular – Appellant
Versus
Paramjit Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
By way of this common order, I dispose off the aforementioned two petitions. Both petitions relate to proceedings emanating from same occurrence. Thus, the same are being taken up together for adjudication.
2. The narration of the facts is a tale of an ordinary municipal election turning into horrific and gory incident. FIR No.17 dated 10.02.2021 registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 188, 148, 149 & 120B IPC at Police Station City Moga, District Moga, Punjab came into being on the statement made by one Gurtej Singh @ Raju Kular whose wife was contesting for the office of Municipal Council on the ticket of Shiromani Akali Dal with respect to murder of Harminder Singh @ Pappu and Jasdeep Singh @ Bhola who were allegedly trampled by Pajero vehicle driven by Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, whose wife Paramjit Kaur Sidhu was the contestant from the same Ward as the Congress candidate.
2.1. On the representation made by the accused-party for re-investigation, SIT was constituted by S.S.P, Moga. SIT concluded that the accused sped away from vehicle in order to save themselves from the crowd of the opposite party and thus, offence under Section 304 IPC was made ou
Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam 2020 (1) RCR(Cri) 370
Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal 2000 (1) RCR(Cri) 407
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401
Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400
Rajesh Bajaj v. Stale NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259
Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Limited
Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
The court emphasized that a complaint filed after significant delay, introducing new allegations, can constitute an abuse of process, especially when prior investigations contradict the claims.
The court affirmed that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing the need for a trial when sufficient grounds for cognizance exist.
A second FIR regarding the same incident is prohibited, but a counter FIR is permissible under law.
The court established that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible, reinforcing the need for a single, comprehensive investigation.
The duty of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the trial to ensure justice in cases of custodial death.
The duty of the Magistrate to apply judicial mind while directing the registration of FIRs, and the consequences of filing frivolous and vexatious proceedings.
A second FIR for the same incident is impermissible under law unless it pertains to a different cognizable offence or occurrence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.