Dismissed

Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2013CRM-M/32646/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision under section 482 Cr.P.C. opposing a stay on dower harassment proceedings against the petitioner's wife. The bench held that since the case title was sub-judice due to a stay on summoned accused, lower courts could not clearly view if proceedings against the petitioner should continue, finding no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed with no ground to interfere with the orders below.

Gurbax Singh Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-32646 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-32646 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 9^th , 2013

Gurbax Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms. Anmol Grewal, A. A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Gurbax Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 28.5.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana as also the order dated 5.7.2012 (Annexure P7) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana

¶17

Sukhwinder Kaur was married with son of Gurbax Singh, the petitioner. Claiming that she had been harassed in connection with demand of dowry and had been assaulted, she lodged a report with the police for an offence punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 324 read with section 34 IPC on which FIR No. 53 was registered on 16.2.2002 at Police Station Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. After due investigation and enquiries, the police submitted challan against one

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-32646 of 2012

¶19

¶20

person and that too for an offence punishable under sections 323 and 324 IPC. Police also initiated proceedings under section 182 IPC against Sukhwinder Kaur because some of the persons accused in the said FIR were found innocent. Vide order dated 28.5.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, the proceedings under section 182 IPC were stayed till decision of the case titled State Vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh . The revision petition filed against this order by Gurbax Singh, the petitioner failed vide order dated 5.7.2012 (Annexure P7) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during enquiry not only the petitioner Gurbax Singh and others were found innocent, but no case was found against them for an offence punishable under sections 307, 498-A IPC etc. According to him, even if in the challan titled State Vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh, submitted in FIR No. 53 dated 16.2.2002 registered at Police Station Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, other accused have been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C., the operation of that order has been stayed by this court. According to him, the Magistrate should have proceeded with the proceedings under section 182 IPC against Sukhwinder Kaur and should not have stayed the said proceedings.

¶22

On the FIR lodged by Sukhwinder Kaur for an offence punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 324 read with section 34 IPC, the investigation was conducted and besides finding some of the accused innocent, the person challaned was also not found to have prima facie committed all the offences. The challan was only filed

¶23

Crl. Misc. No.M-32646 of 2012

¶24

¶25

against Bhupinder Pal Singh for an offence punishable under sections 323 and 324 IPC.

¶26

So far as the persons accused by Sukhwinder Kaur, who have not been challaned are concerned, order has been made under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning them. Though, the operation of that order had been stayed, yet it cannot be said, at this stage, that the allegations against them were false calling for the initiation of proceedings under section 182 IPC.

¶27

Charge has been framed in the case for an offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 406 and 498-A IPC. As mentioned by the petitioner in the petition brought by Bhupinder Pal Singh, this court has accepted the revision petition setting aside the charge under section 307 IPC. It cannot be said that if for Sukhwinder Kaur, the facts attracted the provisions of section 307 IPC and her point of view was not accepted by the court, she would be liable to face proceedings under section 182 IPC. For the persons who were found innocent by the police, the matter is still sub-judice. In these circumstances, the Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have been of any clear view as to whether the proceedings are to continue or not. Therefore, the order passed by the courts below was the best order in the circumstances of the case. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶28

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶29

January 9^th , 2013 som

Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbax Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Madan Lal

Satpal Garg & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Babita Kumari @ Vinita Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dalip Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Karamjeet Singh @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab