Dismissed

Swaranjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2014CRM-M/31133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of an ongoing criminal trial case to avoid harassment. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner already received protection as a witness and the trial was in progress with witnesses examined.

What did the court decide?

The petition for transfer was dismissed; liberty granted to make representation to the police if aggrieved.

Swaranjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-31133 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.12.2014.

Swaranjeet Kaur

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶10

2. To be referred to reporters or not?

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Ms. Shreya Puri, Advocate for Mr. Manish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. T.N. Sarup, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 – State.

¶14

Mr. J.S. Khiva, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶15

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for transferring the case titled as 'State vs. Hitpal Singh and others' relating to FIR No.162 dated 18.10.2008 registered under Sections 342, 323 and 506 IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

¶17

Notice of motion was issued in the case on 18.09.2013

¶18

NEETU RANI 2014.12.19 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. M-31133 of 2013 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

and thereafter, State was directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner while appearing as witness before the trial Court.

¶22

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Gurmukh Singh submits that the trial is in progress and out of 7 prosecution witnesses, 2 have already been examined including petitionercomplainant and Investigating Officer and no threat is there.

¶23

In view of the submissions made by learned State counsel and also the fact that the statement of petitioner has already been recorded; protection was provided by this Court; and now at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is apprehending threat at the instance of private respondents, to restrain him from making of statement before the trial Court, nothing remains in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

¶24

However, in case, the petitioner is still aggrieved by any action of private respondents, she is at liberty to make representation to the concerned Police Station.

¶25

17.12.2014 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE

¶26

NEETU RANI 2014.12.19 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Swaranjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaranjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Surinder Sharma Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh

Sukhdeep Kumar @ Mahant Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Sngh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

Maninder Singh @ Bittu Aulakh Vs State of Punjab

Dev Raj @ Dev Behl Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.