Allowed

Manpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2024CRM-M/11215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a hostile witness who had retracted her statement in an FIR case, sought quashing of perjury proceedings initiated by the trial Court. The High Court allowed the quashing subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000 as costs to PGIMER's Poor Patients' Welfare Fund.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of perjury notice and Section 193 IPC proceedings allowed, subject to Rs.1,00,000 costs deposited within three weeks to PGIMER Poor Patients' Welfare Fund; compliance report ordered for 18.12

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Haryana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-11215-2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

244

¶5

Criminal Misc. No. M-11215 of 2019 Date of decision :-20.11.2024

Manpreet Kaur

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, A dvocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

¶14

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition filed u nder Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quas h ing of the impugned notice f or Perjury dated 08.5.2017 (Annexu r e P-2) in Sessions Case No.11 dated 22.3.2017 titled as “State vs . Karnail Singh” arising out of F IR No.463 dated 05.10.2016 under Se c tions 295-A, 323, 354-A of IP C and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes a n d Scheduled Tribes (Preventi o n of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registere d at Police Station City Kaithal; AND subsequent impugned order dat e d 07.5.2018 (Annexure P-4) p a ssed by the learned Sessions Judge, K aithal, whereby the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistra t e, Kaithal is directed to conduc t trial on the day-to-day basis against t h e perjurer; AND further quas h ing of the impugned order dated 02.7.2018 passed by the Chief Ju d icial Magistrate, Kaithal in COMI/71/2018 titled as “Court on its ow n motion vs. Manpreet Kaur”

¶16

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.11.25 17.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-11215-2019 2

¶18

whereby charge under Section 193 I PC is framed against the petitione r to face trial and all subs e quent proceedings arising therefro m .

¶19

Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that on the statemen t made by the father of the pet i tioner an FIR No.463 dated 05.10.20 1 6 was registered under Sectio n s 295-A, 323, 354-A of IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and S cheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci t ies) Act, 1989, at Police Statio n City Kaithal against Karnail Singh, th e accused therein. The petition e r was stated to be the victim in the sa i d FIR; and it was alleged tha t accused Karnail Singh had committed acts constituting offences u n der the above said sections against t h e petitioner. Subsequently, th e petitioner in her statement under Se c tion 164 Cr.P.C. had supporte d the prosecution case stating as follow s :-

¶20

“On 4.10.2016, in th e evening at about 8 p.m., I along with my father a nd mother, was going to our street after meeting m y sister. When we started entering our street, o n e buffalo of Karnail Singh, who was tethering his buffaloes in the street, fell in the drain and the pip e of our government tap got broken. We lodged c omplaint to Karnail Singh asking him to keep c ontrol over his buffalo as earlier also 2-3 time s such occurrence had taken place. My mother tol d in a lighter vein that this time Karnail Singh w ould get the pipe repaired. Karnail Singh had co n sumed liquor at that point in time. Karnail Sing h told whether the street belonged to your fat h er and he pushed my father and the turban of my father fell down and

¶21

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.11.25 17.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-11215-2019 3

¶23

thereafter, I interven e d. I was also given slaps by Karnail Singh. My to p wear was torn and again I was given slaps. W hen Karnail Singh started giving a 'danda' bl o w to my father, I started rescuing him and i n that process, the 'danda' landed on my foot. He started staying 'Chure, Chamar and Majhab i Sikh had put the dirt and also called me 'Dedh n i'. We are enraged because we have been insulted . My phone was broken when I started dialing the p olice. I went to police bare footed and with torn t o p wear in order to lodge the complaint. We may be dispensed justice."

¶24

However, thereafter, in her deposition as PW2 recorded on 25.4.2017, the petitioner resiled from her abovesaid statement and allegatio n s and stated as follows :-

¶25

“I do not know accus e d present in the Court today. Accused never called me “Dedni” nor he gave me any beatings nor tore m y clothes.”

¶26

As a result, the petitio n er was declared hostile. Consequ e ntially, the accused Karnail Singh stood acquitted of the charges f ramed against him. However, the learned trial Court vide impugne d order dated 07.5.2018 issued impugned notice of Perjury dated 08 . 5.2017 (Annexure P-2) agains t the petitioner and directed that actio n be taken against her under Se c tion 193 IPC.

¶27

At the very outset, learne d counsel for the petitioner submits t hat the present is a mercy petition and prays for the indulgen c e of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the complain a nt in the present case i.e. the father of the petitioner has expired. The petitioner has solemnize d marriage and has a minor

¶28

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.11.25 17.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

¶30

CRM-M-11215-2019

¶31

child, who is only one year and three mo n ths old. It is submitted that the petiti o ner had resiled from her abov e said statement only in view of the fa c t that the petitioner and the a ccused resided in the same village. A s such, respectables of the vi l lage had intervened and had prevailed upon the petitioner and th e complainant to effect a compro m ise with the accused Karnail Si n gh. It is submitted that the complain a nt/father of the petitioner w a s a Granthi in the village Gurudwa r a; and therefore in order to ma i ntain peace in the village he too had prevailed upon and persuaded th e petitioner to resile from her previous statement. It is further submit t ed that the petitioner is not working s ince the last two years and she h as a minor child to take care of. It is a ccordingly prayed that the pre s ent petition be allowed, and the impu g ned notice/complaint bearing No.COMI/71/2018 titled as “Court o n its own motion vs. Manpreet K aur” whereby charge under Section 193 IPC has been framed against the petitioner, be quashed. Learned counsel for the St a te opposes the prayer made on behal f of the petitioner and submit s that offence of perjury is serious a n d cannot be condoned. It is s ubmitted that it has become rampant p ractice that false allegations ar e made and subsequently the complain a nt and victims go back from their statements resulting in great har a ssment not just to the accused persons but also to the State and its m a chinery. It is accordingly pray e d that the present petition be dismisse d .

¶32

Having heard learned coun s el for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that keeping in m ind the entire facts and circumst a nces of the case, it will serv e the ends of justice if the

¶33

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.11.25 17.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-11215-2019 5

¶35

present p etition is allowed, howeve r subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs to be deposited b y the petitioner within three weeks fr o m today in the “Poor Patient s ’ Welfare Fund of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Educatio n and Research (PGIMER), Chandig a rh”. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the above ter m s. However, it is made clear t hat in case of default by the petitione r in depositing the above said costs in the stipulated time, the present p e tition shall be deemed to have b een dismissed.

¶36

Compliance report be called for 18.12.2024.

¶37

Novemb e r 20, 2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶38

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶39

VIJAY ASIJA 2024.11.25 17.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Kaur 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

Mukesh Vs Anju and Another

Meenakshi Vs State of Punjab and Another

Varun Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Bittu Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sahil Goyal Vs State of Punjab