Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwant Kaur And Others vs Balwant Singh on 19 March, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-7605 of 2009
Date of decision: 19th March, 2009
Sukhwant Kaur and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Balwant Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint titled as 'Balwant Singh v. Smt. Sukhwant Kaur' dated 16th July, 2003 (Annexure P-4) and summoning order dated 11th October, 2006 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 20th February, 2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran.
Balwant Singh had filed a complaint against the accused petitioners. The trial Court, after dealing with the preliminary evidence, had come to the conclusion that accused are required to be summoned for offence under Section 379 read with Section 149 IPC.
This order was assailed in a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran. Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran while deciding the revision, considered that three witnesses were examined and their preliminary evidence was taken into consideration by the trial Court for summoning the petitioners. Witnesses examined were Balwant Singh complainant CW-1, Dilbagh Singh CW-2 and Dhian Singh CW-3. Criminal Misc. No. M-7605 of 2009 2
Counsel for the petitioners has not placed on record the statements of the witnesses recorded as preliminary evidence. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon order of the Civil Court, where status quo was granted. Counsel has stated that against disobedience of the status quo, a contempt petition was filed, which was dismissed. Counsel has further stated that since order of status-quo was accepted, therefore, no offence is made out as petitioners are deemed to be in possession of the concerned land.
From the order of status-quo, it cannot be determined whether petitioners are in possession of the land or not. This is to be proved by the parties by adducing evidence before the trial Court.
Hence there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has stated that personal appearance of petitioners No.1, 4 and 6, who are ladies, be exempted before the trial Court, as male co-accused will be appearing before the trial Court.
Taking into consideration the fact that petitioners No.1, 4 and 6 are ladies, their personal appearance before the trial Court, is exempted subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 19, 2009 rps