Snehal Upadhyay-
Published on: August 18, 2021 13:46 IST
The Additional District and Sessions Court of Chandigarh quashed the plea which was filed by a 75-year-old Chandigarh resident namely Guriqbal Singh. He filed a plea against an order passed by Magistrate Court, wherein the Court had dismissed his request for getting a copy of the order on a private criminal complaint in the Hindi language.
Guriqbal Singh approached the Chandigarh district court in June 2018, with a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Police powers to investigate cognizable cases).
The complaint claimed for registration of FIR (First Information Report) against several people pertaining to a land dispute case.
After hearing the arguments the Magistrate (JMIC) Court decided to dismiss the plea in September 2018.
Afterwards, he moved an application in May 2019, seeking a Hindi copy of the dismissal order, he had filed the application in the Hindi language itself.
This request was also denied by the Court, hence he moved to the Additional District and Sessions Court of Chandigarh in August 2019.
Advocate Ajay Kumar Sharma, who represented Guriqbal Singh argued that the use of the English language in all the District Courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh is illegal and wrong. He further also argued that one of his review petitions is still pending in the District Court for the past two years.
The counsel further contended that the Court must dismiss the revision petition so that the complainant may approach the higher Court.
After hearing this, the Additional Sessions Judge Jaibir Singh stated that “This court is stunned to see the agitating conduct of counsel for the revisionist/complainant, even on the first appearance before this court and instead of assisting the court in the proper manner he stated straightaway that his revision petition may be dismissed. The revisionist/complainant filed a complaint against 10 respondents and prayed for sending the same under Section 156(3) CrPC. However, the learned trial court disallowed the prayer of the revisionist/complainant vide order dated September 10, 2018.”
The Court stated that counsel for the complainant did not assist the Court and when the Court asked him clarification concerning the proviso as contained in High Court rules and orders pertaining to “Court language”, he straightaway ignored the direction and started saying that the present revision petition may be dismissed as he wants to approach the High Court in this respect.
While quashing down the plea, the Court stated that it didn’t see any irregularity or illegality in the District Court’s order.