Remanded

Angrej Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2012CRM-M/27704/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honorable Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh disposed of three criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing an order summoning petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without prior cross-examination of the prosecution witness Case remanded to Magistrate for fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders summoning petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. set aside and case remanded to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for passing fresh order.

Angrej Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-27704 of 2011 (O&M), Crl. Misc. No. M- 8026 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 21381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-27704 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 19, 2012

¶5

Angrej Kaur & another ........Petitioners

¶6

Versus State of Punjab & another ........Respondents And

¶7

Crl. Misc. No. M- 8026 of 2011 (O&M)

¶8

Rajinder Kaur ........Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Punjab and another ........Respondents

¶11

And

¶12

Crl. Misc. No. M- 21381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶13

Baljit Kaur & another ........Petitioners

¶14

Versus State of Punjab & another ........Respondents ******

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶16

Present : Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM-M No.27704 of 2011)

¶17

Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM-M No.8026 of 2011 & CRM-M No.21381 of 2011).

¶18

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶19

Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶20

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶21

This order will be dispose of CRM-M No.27704 of 2011, CRM-M No.8026 of 2011 and CRM-M No.21381 of 2011, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-27704 of 2011 (O&M), Crl. Misc. No. M- 8026 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 21381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

The instant petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 10.01.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed as well as the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot (Annexure P-2) in case FIR No.249 dated 09.10.2007, under Sections 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial under Section 498-A IPC along with the accused already facing trial.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the complaint of Rajinder Kaur against her husband Gurmeet Singh and other relations on the allegations that Gurmeet Singh, who is posted as Constable in the police department, was married to the complainant on 05.12.2004. As per the averments made in the FIR sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage along with cash and other valuables and gold ornaments which were entrusted to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant-respondent No.2 was harassed and treated with cruelty by her husband and his family members and who usurped her Istridhan and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. The police investigated the case. Petitioners in these petitions were found to be innocent and were placed in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Prosecution examined complainant-Rajinder Kaur as PW1. Thereafter, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioners have been summoned.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that originally in the FIR the names of the petitioners were mentioned but no specific allegations were levelled against them except to the fact that one

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M-27704 of 2011 (O&M), Crl. Misc. No. M- 8026 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 21381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶28

¶29

gold bangle and one gold ring were given to petitioner Angrej Kaur, Baljit Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh was given one gold ring and Baljit Kaur was given one box, Jasvir Kaur- petitioner was given kitchen utensils and Rajinder Kaur was given a fridge. However, in the statement recorded before the Court complainant alleged that Baljit Kaur came to her and told her that there was a marriage in her in-law's house and took away one gold set from her which has not been returned. It was also alleged that the husband of the complainant Gurmeet Singh has illicit relations with Rajinder Kaur (Jethani) sister-in-law.

¶30

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the marriage was performed on 05.12.2004 and the FIR has been registered on 09.10.2007. Baljit Kaur is the sister-in-law who had married on 08.02.1998. Both Baljit Kaur and Rajinder Kaur, had married prior to the marriage of the complainant. Rajinder Kaur (Jethani) is widow and is residing separately and Angrej Kaur is mother-in-law. There was no specific allegation against them and even the police during investigation has found them to be innocent. Nothing has been recovered from them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only after the statement of the complainant Rajinder Kaur PW1. She was also not even cross examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 947, to contend that without cross examination petitioners cannot be summoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that there are two divergent views with regard to the statement under Section 319 Cr.P.C. One view is that additional accused should be

¶32

¶33

Crl. Misc. No. M-27704 of 2011 (O&M), Crl. Misc. No. M- 8026 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 21381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶34

summoned only when there are chances of conviction. Another view is that when the court finds prima facie evidence against some persons those can be summoned as additional accused. In this regard relying on Hardeep Singh (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this issue has already been referred to Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Admittedly, in the present case cross examination of the P.W.1 has not been done. Furthermore, there is no specific allegation in the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Keeping in view the law laid down in Hardeep Singh's case (supra) which till date has not been reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that additional accused can only be summoned after the PWs are cross examined. In instant case it has not been done. So in view of above, both the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for passing fresh order in accordance with law.

¶36

Petitions stand disposed of.

¶37

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE

¶38

Anand

¶39

19.09.2012

Angrej Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab

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

Mani @ Manpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Chandro Devi Vs State of Haryana

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Amarinder Ubhi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baljit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Banso Vs State of Punjab