GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2016-7-255
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 25,2016

GURMIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VISHWANATH GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. - (1.)Petitioner Gurmit Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions against respondents no. 2 to 5 to initiate criminal prosecution against private respondents no. 8 to 11.
(2.)The brief averments and allegations which forms the very basis of this petition are that younger brother of the petitioner namely Sukhwinder Singh then aged around 20 years, as a consequence of conspiracy hatched by the private respondents at Patiala on 22.8.2013 took his brother to Madhya Pradesh on a harvest Combine as a helper but thereafter was never heard of. In between it is alleged that on 1.9.2013, the petitioner had a telephonic conversation with his said younger brother and on 24.11.2013, private respondents reached the village where the petitioner tried to know the whereabouts of his brother but could not get any satisfactory reply from the private respondents and as a consequence of which the petitioner moved the local police but to no avail and has relied on his representation Annexure P/1 and missing report lodged by him on 11.9.2013 Annexure P/2. It is the allegations that the concerned police after marking inquiry turned away the petitioner on the pretext that the occurrence if any has taken place in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has sought to place reliance on documents Annexure P/6 and P/7.
(3.)Upon notice to official respondents, they filed reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Harvinder Singh Virk, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patiala through learned State counsel whereby it was admitted that a complaint was certainly made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala by the petitioner regarding which inquiry Annexure P/7 was held and it transpired that the younger brother of the petitioner accompanied the private respondents on harvest Combine as a helper and was seen and heard on in the area of State of Madhya Pradesh and that as per the stand of the State taken during the course of inquiry that on 8.10.2013 around 11.00 PM said Sukhwinder Singh @ Kaku took away his belongings and disappeared and thus could not be traced out regarding which dis-appearance report was lodged with Police Station Harda (Madhya Pradesh) and that since the incident has taken place in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the police at Patiala did not have territorial jurisdiction to look into the grievance of the petitioner though admitting that it was on 22.8.2013 the younger brother of the petitioner had left with the private respondents on a harvest Combine from Patiala and has sought to reiterate that the statutory provisions enacted by way of section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) to hammer home the point that only courts in the State of Madhya Pradesh were competent to act in the matter.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.