CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 01 P&H CK 0112

Harish Kumar Aggarwal and Pioneer Sales Corporation vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 January 2003

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viney Mittal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10420-M of 1999
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 336 words

Viney Mittal, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal complaint dated November 22, 1991 filed under Sections 3K(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, copy of the aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition.

2.

I have heard Shri Vibhore Bansal, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sandeep Jain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the contents of the complaint as well as the contents of the present petition.

3.

In my considered opinion, no case is made out for exercising of the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Various pleas have been raised by the petitioners challenging the filing of the complaint and continuation thereof. However, I find that those pleas need to be raised by the petitioners before the learned trial Magistrate.

4.

Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the learned trial Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against tem. While filing the aforesaid application, it shall be open to the petitioners to raise all the pleas raised in the present petition and other defences available to tem in accordance with law before the trial Court. If any such application is filed by the petitioners then the trial Magistrate would decide the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

5.

The personal presence of the petitioners shall also remain exempted during the course of trial. However, the learned trial Court is at liberty to secure the personal presence of the petitioners as and when the same is required by it is accordance with law.

6.

Since the matter has remained pending in this Court for a sufficiently long time, therefore, the trial Court is directed that the proceedings in the case (SIC) concluded expeditiously and in any case not later than July 31, 2004.