SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harbans Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 14 May, 2018

LPA No.18 of 2018 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.18 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 14.05.2018

Dr. Harbans Singh Sodhi
… Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others

… Respondents

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

Present:- Mr. S.C.Arora, Advocate,
for the appellant.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

The instant appeal has been filed under Clause X of the

Letters Patent against judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed by the

learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.25473 of

2017.

Briefly noticed, appellant filed writ petition seeking

compensation for having been falsely implicated and illegally

confined in jail upon registration of FIR No.30 dated 02.04.2010,

under Sections 406, 420, 498A, 376 and 34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Kot Bhai, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that

Gurdev Singh had got registered the criminal case against the

appellant as also his wife and consequently they had been

arrested and were bailed out after a period of one month when

charge under Section 376 IPC was not pressed by the prosecution.

It is contended that under such situation appellant was

1 of 2
::: Downloaded on – 20-05-2018 06:53:32 :::
LPA No.18 of 2018 (OM) 2

entitled to be granted compensation by the Writ Court. Further

argued that Trial Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to award

adequate compensation.

Having heard learned counsel at length and having

perused the case paper book we are of the considered view that

there is no merit in the instant appeal.

Concededly trial is still pending. Even otherwise

registration of an FIR is not a conclusive indicator as regards

complicity of an accused of the offences cited in the FIR. Appellant

has not been charged for offence under Section 376 IPC. We also

find that in the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking issuance

of a writ of mandamus for grant of compensation, complainant had

not even been arrayed as a respondent.

We are in agreement with the view taken by learned

Single Judge declining grant of compensation during pendency of

the trial.

Appeal is dismissed.

Suffice it to observe that it would be open for the

appellant to raise a claim for compensation at the appropriate

stage under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from

the competent Court.

Appeal dismissed.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
14.05.2018
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

2 of 2
20-05-2018 06:53:33 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation