AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 213 wordsI.S. Tiwana, J.
The complainant respondent has not put in appearance in spite of service.
It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil liability of the petitioner was determined vide award of the arbitrator dated November 30, 1981, and in view of that there could be no prosecution of the petitioner on the same set of facts. Undisputably the charge against the petitioner was framed on March 26, 1987. In the light of the above noted facts it looks apparent that to proceed against the petitioner in a criminal Court on the same set of facts which were the subject matter of the award against him before the arbitrator, is the misuse of the process of Court. Similar view has been taken by this Court earlier in Cri. Misc. 429. M of 1987 (Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab) decided on February 20, 1987 and Harbhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent CR 156. In the light of that I set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge remanding the case to the trial Court for proceeding against the petitioner.
The net result is that the petitioner is discharged as directed by the trial Court vide its order dated April 30, 1986.