Allowed

Gurbaksh Kaur Dhillon v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2022CRLMP/1109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a petition quashing the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's permission to travel to Canada. The court held that since the cognizance against her dependents was stayed, barring the 72-year-old petitioner from traveling violated her fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 rejecting the request to travel abroad is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to move to Canada.

Gurbaksh Kaur Dhillon Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1109/2022

¶3

Gurbaksh Kaur Dhillon W/o Sh. Awtar Singh Dhillon, Aged About 72 Years, B/c Jatt Sikh, R/o 402, Martindale Blvd, N.e. Calgary, Alberta, T3J 3M1, Canada And Presently Residing At Chak 24 P.s., Teh. Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Bhati, P. P.

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

07/03/2022

¶12

By way of the present petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby her application to seek permission to go abroad has been rejected.

¶13

The facts germane for the present purposes are that an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner by her daughter-inlaw under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2021 while imposing a condition that the petitioner would not leave India without the leave/permission of the Court.

¶15

Mr. Jagga, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.02.2022 argued that while rejecting the

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-1109/2022]

¶18

application, the sole reason given by the trial Court is, that summons were served upon the petitioner with great difficulty. He argued that such reason cannot be a ground for rejecting petitioner’s application for leaving the country.

¶19

Mr. Jagga informed that against the order of cognizance, petitioner’s husband and son had moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.3620/2018 in which, vide order dated 02.03.2022 this Court has stayed the order dated 17.04.2015 whereby cognizance had been taken. 6. It is stated that the said petition has been admitted and decision thereof will take considerably long time. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner, as she is a senior citizen and if she is allowed to travel out of the country, her chances of returning back and facing the trial will be very low. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that vide order dated 02.03.2022 passed in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.3620/2018 filed by petitioner’s husband and son, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the petition and stayed the effect and operation of the order taking cognizance against petitioner’s husband and son.

¶20

This being the position, since the order of cognizance itself has been stayed, unless the above referred petition is decided, no proceedings can be taken by the trial Court in said case which also involves the present petitioner.

¶21

Such being the position, the petitioner an old lady of 72 years cannot be denied to travel to Canada, where she is living as a citizen, that too when the alleged offences are essentially not

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-1109/2022]

¶24

against the society. Rejection of petitioner’s application has resulted in violation of her fundamental rights.

¶25

As a result of the foregoing discussion, the present misc. petition is allowed.

¶26

The order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the trial Court is, hereby, quashed and set aside to the extent of rejecting petitioner’s request of traveling abroad.

¶27

The petitioner shall be free to move to Canada.

¶28

It will be required of the petitioner to present herself in the

¶29

trial Court at least once in each calendar year.

¶30

Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

189-A.Arora/-

Gurbaksh Kaur Dhillon v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbaksh Kaur Dhillon v. State

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

Surjo Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Mandot Vs State of Rajasthan

Nakhta Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Parihar Vs State

Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan