IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 763 of 1999 Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Pyara Singh Sra ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 148, 149, 380, 386, 395, 432, 448, 506, 511, 307, 419, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Devinder Singh Kamboj and others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate COCP No.763 of 1999 assigned the complaint to JMIC, Panchkula, who had passed the following order on 27.04.1999:- “Same is forwarded to S.H.O., Police Station, Sector 19, Panchkula for registration and investigation of case. File be sent through S.P. Office.” The allegation of the petitioner is that inspite of clear cut order of the learned JMIC, the SHO of Police Station Sector 19, Panchkula, has not registered any case and thus, committed a contempt of Court. In reply, respondent No.3 has submitted that order dated 27.04.1999 passed by learned JMIC, Panchkula, for registration and investigation of a case on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant related to the facts for which a case has already stood registered vide FIR No. 39 dated 18.04.1999 under Sections 447, 448, 452, 427, 380, 506, 148, 149 IPC, P.S. Sector 19, Panchkula on the basis of complaint made by Mrs. Veena Bhutani Sethi. The investigation of the complaint filed by the petitioner was taken up along with that case as its constituted one and the same transaction. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent while clubbing the complaint of the petitioner with FIR No. 39 dated 18.4.1999 was legal and in consonance with Section 220 and 223 of the Code of 2 COCP No.763 of 1999 Criminal Procedure. But the petitioner wants to get the case registered separately for the same offence. From the perusal of the reply of the respondent, it appears that the respondent had fully complied with the directions of the learned JMIC, Panchkula as the complaint of the petitioner was clubbed with FIR No. 39 dated 18.4.1999, which was of the same offence. In the opinion of this Court, no separate FIR is required for the investigation, therefore, no contempt is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondents stands discharged. July 21, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3