Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jiwan Jagjot vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 March, 2025
AMIT KAUNDAL
2025.03.20 15:10
CRM-M-10448-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10448-2018
Date of Reserve : 03.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025
Jiwan Jagjot
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.5.
3K 2k
H.S. Grewal, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of the order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Amloh (Annexure P-9) vide which the petitioner's application under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking re-investigation in case FIR No.74 dated 29.04.2015,
registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 IPC at Police Station
Gobindgarh has been dismissed.
2. It is pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner that on 28.04.2015,
the vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident wherein she suffered various
injuries including fracture on her left leg. The FIR was registered upon the
statement of Daljit Singh, who had stated that a tractor trolley was going in
front of their car which was driven by him and the petitioner was sitting in the
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
AMIT KAUNDAL
2025.03.20 15:10
2025: PHHC:034f04
said car. The tractor trolley was fully loaded with 'prali'. As Daljit Singh
noticed that the driver of the tractor trolley was driving in a rash and negligent
manner, Daljit Singh slowed down the car but suddenly without giving any
signal or indicator, the tractor turned towards Shri Ganesh Addi Balesh Factor,
Shahpur which caused the accident. Daljit Singh (complainant) had suffered
left leg fracture near the step joint bone and other various injuries on his chest,
forehead, left arm while the petitioner also suffered injuries including facture
on her left leg. Although the petitioner was an eyewitness of the alleged
incident and got serious injuries, her statement was not recorded by the police
while at their own, a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the
respondent-police authorities.
3. It is also alleged that the petitioner, instead of providing proper
medical treatment, was immediately discharged on 29.04.2015. A copy of the
discharge summary dated 29.04.2015 is at Annexure P-2. It is also pleaded that
although the discharge report of the petitioner is part and parcel of the final
report, however, the treatment undergone by the petitioner is not part of the
record. The petitioner also alleged that the site plan has been wrongly prepared.
The petitioner had earlier filed a petition before this Court by way of CRM-M-
27275-2016, praying re-investigation of the matter but the same was dismissed
as withdrawn on 21.04.2017 and the order thereof is reproduced as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw the petition with liberty to avail the other legal
remedies available to the petitioner.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for."
4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. before the SDJM, Amloh which was dismissed vide the
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2025: PHHC:034f04
impugned order (Annexure P-9) holding that the charges have already been
framed against the accused on 12.08.2015 under Sections 279/338 IPC. It has
also been observed in the impugned order that since the petitioner has been
cited as a witness to the occurrence and her deposition is yet to be recorded as a
witness and instead of getting her statement recorded as a witness, she has
chosen to move this application. Other allegations have already been refuted by
the prosecution. Therefore, on the said grounds, the application was dismissed,
vide the impugned order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P-9).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the record.
6. At this belated stage when the charges have been framed against
the accused persons, no case is made out to issue direction for re-investigation
of the matter afresh in the light of the statement of the petitioner as it would not
help the trial rather would delay the trial. The petitioner can very well bring
out the true facts when she will appear as a witness before the trial Court and
she would have ample opportunity to put her case before the trial Court.
7. In the case of K. Vadivel versus K. Shanthi and others, (2024)
10 SCR 1, it has been held that further investigation cannot be ordered at the
post cognizance stage and the relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the
process have contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven
years having elapsed after the incident, the trial has still not
concluded. No doubt, the High Court allowed the further
investigation which we have today reversed. The judgment
of the High Court also gave no valid justification for
ordering a further investigation.
AMIT KAUNDAL
2025.03.20 15:10
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
AMIT KAUNDAL
2025.03.20 15:10
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
45. The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at
large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be
available to the parties within a reasonable time. It is
beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important
facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can
be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the
parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid
justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts
need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud
instantly. The administration of justice feeds on the faith of
the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely
shake that faith and confidence.
46. The legal profession has an important role to play in
the process. Any proceeding or application which prima
facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court. We are
constrained to observe this because of late we notice that
pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie
unbelievable averments are made with no_ inhibition
whatsoever. This is especially so in some family law
proceedings, both civil and criminal. Reading some of the
averments therein, we are left to wonder whether at all the
deponents were conscious of what has been written
purportedly on their behalf, before appending their
signatures. These misadventures directly impinge on the rule
of law, because they add to the pendency and the
consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are
crying for justice. It is time that such frivolous and vexatious
proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of
exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such
tactics. If we have desisted from such a course in this case,
it is only because the High Court allowed the petition and it
8.
is here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed
the petition for further investigation.
47. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we set
aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in
Criminal RC (MD) No. 533 of 2020. Consequently Cr. M.P.
No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 61/2014 filed by the respondent no.
1 before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge
for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrP.C. would
stand dismissed. We further direct that, in view of the
dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet
dated 02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is,
accordingly, allowed."
In view of the above, since the petitioner still have an ample
opportunity to put her case before the trial Court, I do not find any illegality
and perversity in the order of the trial Court, declining re-investigation of the
case in FIR No.74 dated 29.04.2015, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 &
427 IPC at Police Station Gobindgarh.
9.
12.03.2025
A.Kaundal
AMIT KAUNDAL
2025.03.20 15:10
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
(H.S.GREWAL)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
