Partly allowed

Lalita Rani v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2009CRM-M/47587/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as withdrawn by the petitioner. However, granting a separate plea for personal appearance exemption, the court exempted the petitioner from appearing in person at the trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing was dismissed as withdrawn. Personal appearance was exempted subject to an undertaking.

Lalita Rani Vs State of Haryana — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-47587 of 2007

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-47587 of 2007

¶5

Date of Decision: 21.4.2009

Lalita Rani

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the State.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that FIR No. 218 dated 30.5.2007 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal, under Sections 406, 498-A & 506 IPC, be quashed.

¶16

Petitioner is stated to be sister of the husband of complainant. It is further stated that she is having separate residence. In the FIR specific allegations have been levelled against her.

¶17

Counsel for the State has submitted that in the present case, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed and case is fixed for framing of charge on 9.5.2009. Counsel for the State has relied upon para 2 of the preliminary submissions and has submitted that there are

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-47587 of 2007

¶19

¶20

specific allegations against the petitioner.

¶21

In view of this, counsel for the petitioner pays that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition to raise all arguments before the trial Court at appropriate stage.

¶22

As prayed, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was married prior to the marriage of her brother with the complainant and she is having two children and is having separate residence. It is further submitted that she is employed as a Teacher in the Government Senior Secondary School. Counsel further submits that taking these facts into consideration, personal appearance of the petitioner be exempted before the trial Court.

¶24

I find merit in this contention of counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that she shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in her absence but in the presence of her counsel shall be binding upon her. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. On the furnishing of undertaking, the personal appearance of petitioner shall stand exempted.

¶26

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶27

April 21, 2009 “ DK ”

Lalita Rani v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Rani v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Nand Swami Vs State of Hy.

Duli Chand Vs State of Haryana

Prem Chand Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Basanti Vs Karamveer

Gurdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab