Remanded

Darshan Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2008CRM-M/39354/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a casual, non-speaking order framing charges under Sections 364 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners' submissions were dismissed by the trial court without reasoning or consideration, violating judicial process in the absence of an FIR or police report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order/framing of charges dated 24.7.2008 set aside; matter remitted to trial court.

Darshan Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

**Crl. Misc. No.3945-M of 2008. Date of Decision: 3.11.2008 *****

¶3

Urmila Devi & Ors.

¶4

.. Petitioners

¶5

**Vs. Ram Kali. With Crl. Misc. No.8213-M of 2008. *****

¶6

.. Respondent.

¶7

Prem Kumar

¶8

.. Petitioner Vs. Ram Kali.

¶9

.. Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶11

Present:Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

**Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the respondent-complainant. *****

¶13

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶14

Since in both the above referred petitions, the petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint dated 24.4.2002, titled as Kali Ram Vs. Urmila & Ors. and also the consequential proceedings taken therein, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

¶15

It is apt to mention here that after the summoning of the petitioners and one Ramesh under Sections 364/ 120-B IPC and after securing their presence, the complaint was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

¶16

A copy of charge-sheet has been produced before the Court at the time of arguments, showing that the petitioners along with Ramesh,

¶17

have been charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Sections 364 read with Section 120-B IPC, during the pendency of the instant petitions before this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, has contended that in view of ratio laid down in the case of Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 779, he is not pressing the relief of quashing of the complaint, but has contended that now the petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 24.7.2008 whereby they have been chargesheeted under Sections 364, 120-B IPC, which have been framed against them during the pendency of instant petitions. It has been contended that much has been argued before the trial court that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners, but none of their contentions have been taken into consideration while framing the charges by the learned Court below, without applying its mind. There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. The order framing charge reads as under:-

¶19

“ Heard on charge and file perused. From the perusal of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. a prima facie case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 364 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out against all the accused. Let they be charge-sheeted.”

¶20

Surprisingly, it is a private complaint instituted by the complainant-respondent and it is the preliminary evidence led by him, which has resulted into summoning of the petitioners and one Ramesh. Neither there was report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. nor statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Not only this, a bare perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no discussion with regard to what has been argued on behalf of the present petitioners while they were ordered to be chargesheeted.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant has also not been able to refute the aforesaid position.

¶22

The impugned order has been passed in a very casual manner and without applying the mind judiciously and such a non-speaking order

¶23

cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order/ charge-sheet dated 24.7.2008 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction that it shall pass orders on charge afresh, after hearing the parties, on merits and without being influenced from any observation made hereinabove.

¶24

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 25.11.2008.

¶25

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶27

November 3,2008 Jiten

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶29

Crl. Misc. No.8213-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.11.2008

¶30

¶31

Prem Kumar @ Vicky

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Ram Kali.

.. Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶37

Present:Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶38

**Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the respondent-complainant. *****

¶39

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶40

For orders, see Crl. Misc. No. 3945-M of 2008.

¶41

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶42

November 3,2008 Jiten

Darshan Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Gaba Vs Ajay Kumar

Sheopal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balvir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jyoti Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Mann Singh Vs Jal Kaur

Vijay Pal Vs Jyoti