CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2008 › Jagdish Tytler v. State of Punjab

Jagdish Tytler v. State of Punjab

Supreme Court of India · 12 December 2008

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
12 December 2008
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 2025 of 2008
Bench
K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2025 OF 2008
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.6308 OF 2008)

JAGDISH TYTLER
Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave granted.

By this appeal, the appellant seeks transfer of the Criminal Complaint NO.672/27.09.2004 titled as S.Harvinder Singh Phoolka Vs. Jagdish Tytler pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, Punjab to a competent court of jurisdiction in the State of Haryana.

Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant submits that he has no objection to transfer the case to Delhi. Accordingly we order for transfer of the Criminal Complaint No.672/27.09.2004, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, Punjab to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi shall try the case himself or entrust the same to be tried by any court of competent jurisdiction.

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, Punjab is directed to send all the records to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, CRLMP 18111/2008 is also disposed of.

Post CRLMP NO.20191/2008 for admission.

...............CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI;
12TH DECEMBER, 2008.

Ask CaseMinister about Jagdish Tytler v. State of Punjab

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp