City
Epaper

SC seeks explanation from registry for accepting counter affidavit from non-party

By IANS | Updated: November 17, 2024 12:45 IST

New Delhi, Nov 17 A 2-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the apex ...

Open in App

New Delhi, Nov 17 A 2-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the apex court registry as to how a counter affidavit from a non-party could be accepted.

In its order, a bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi noted that impleadment application of the proposed respondent-complainant was never allowed by the court but a counter affidavit filed on his behalf has been placed on record.

“It appears that the application (IA No. 161791/2024) seeking impleadment of the said proposed respondent has not been allowed by the Court. Registry is directed to explain as to how, such counter affidavit from the proposed respondent-complainant, who is not a party, could be accepted,” said the Bench, also comprising Justice S.C. Sharma.

Allowing time for the counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Punjab to get instructions on the latest status of the investigation, the apex court posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.

Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing, it added.

A vacation bench of the Supreme Court, in June this year, ordered that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 07/2024 registered at P.S. Tarsikka, District Amritsar Rural, Punjab till the next date of hearing.

Before this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner considering the nature and gravity of the offence.

After perusing the record, it had said, “The present case was registered on the statement of the complainant with the allegation that the petitioner along with co-accused, while being armed with 'datar', had inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the complainant, out of which injury No.1 was found to be grievous in nature. Though the said injury was not on the vital part of the body, yet it is grievous in nature and recovery of weapon of offence is yet to be effected from the petitioner for which his custodial interrogation is required.”

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Open in App

Related Stories

InternationalTrump's policy decisions continue to clash with India's core strategic interests: Report

EntertainmentRubina Dilaik on if she believes in discussing everything with her partner Abhinav Shukla

NationalCBI court sentences railway engineer to three years in bribery case

NationalJ&K farmers express gratitude as PM Modi releases 20th PM-KISAN instalment

BusinessMax Fresh's Vision for a Smarter Indian Kitchen Takes Center Stage at Vibrant India Exhibition at the Chennai Trade Centre

National Realted Stories

NationalStudents should embrace thoughts of Dr Ambedkar to achieve their goals: CJI Gavai

NationalFrom denial to evidence: How NADRA cards nail Pakistan’s hand in Pahalgam attack

NationalOdisha CM disburses Rs 697 Crore under PM-KISAN, calls for inclusive growth, farmer empowerment

NationalVisa of Bangladeshi model arrested from Kolkata expired in 2021: MEA tells Kolkata Police

NationalOver 150 iIlegal shops demolished in Ajmer's dargah area