IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 22nd August, 2019
Dalbir Kaur another
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for
Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harbir Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for respondent No.2.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.
What has led to this queer imbroglio calls for recapitulating
the historical background of this litigation. From matrimonial alliance
between the complainant Puneet Kaur of case bearing FIR No.04 dated
19.01.2017 under Sections 420, Section406, Section498A IPC pertaining to Police
Station Women Cell, Jalandhar (in short, ‘the case’) and Parampreet
Singh son of petitioner No.1 Dalbir Kaur and brother of petitioner No.2
Rumeet Kaur, the present case was got registered after the couple
developed matrimonial dispute while residing in Australia. It is
consequent upon this, when the present petitioners were declared as
proclaimed offenders vide orders dated 16.09.2017, a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 was filed
1 of 5
08-09-2019 08:48:44 :::
CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 2
seeking setting aside of the proclamation proceedings and orders dated
16.09.2017.
A coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated
28.08.2018, passed the following directions:-
“XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX
In view of the fact that the petitioners have
appeared before the trial Court and have furnished
requisite bail bonds and now they are facing the trial,
the impugned order dated 16.09.2017 is set aside.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.”
It is thereafter, an application bearing CRM No.30855 of
2018 was moved seeking recalling of the orders dated 28.08.2018 (ibid)
passed by this Court whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court on
05.02.2019 passed the following orders:-
“XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX
This application has been supported by an
affidavit of the counsel himself. In this background,
since the application is supported by an affidavit of
the counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to recall
the order dated 28.08.2018 and that the same can be
heard on merits.
Put up as per roster.
In the meanwhile, interim order would
continue.”
2 of 5
08-09-2019 08:48:45 :::
CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 3
It is in the background of this situation, present original
petition has come about before this Court for disposal.
The petitioners accused Dalbir Kaur and Rumeet Kaur in
precise had claimed that no notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. was
ever issued after registration of the FIR by the police and that both, the
complainant and her husband son of the petitioner Dalbir Kaur, are
residing in Australia, while they were residents of Amritsar and the FIR
was got registered in Jalandhar and they could not, by any means and due
diligence, be aware of the pendency of the proceedings, alleging that the
entire proceedings have been mala-fidely initiated and carried on
deceitfully at their back. It was claimed that no real and effective service
of the process upon the petitioners was made and there has been non-
adherence to the pre-requisites of Sections 82 and Section83 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and thus, the orders declaring the petitioners as
proclaimed offenders are illegal, inoperative and need to be set aside.
The respondent State as well as the private respondent filed
separate written replies and the crux of both is the same and is to the
effect that all the accused were duly served with notice under Section
41A Cr.P.C. It is further claimed by the respondents that the petitioners
were fully aware of the complaint filed by the complainant in which they
had appeared at the initial inquiry and subsequent to the registration of
the FIR, another application was moved by petitioner Dalbir Kaur
seeking holding of fresh inquiry and proper investigations as the
allegations were false and concocted. The respondents have claimed that
3 of 5
08-09-2019 08:48:45 :::
CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 4
the petitioners had knowingly and intentionally failed to obey the process
issued by the Court and that even the principal accused Parampreet Singh
did not bother to come to India to appear and has since also been declared
a proclaimed offender. Terming each and every averment to be false and
frivolous, they sought dismissal of the same.
Upon hearing Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate appearing on
behalf of Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Harbir
Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab representing respondent
No.1/State and Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for respondent No.2 and on
perusal of the records.
From what has been detailed above and is well elicited from
the records in this case, what emancipates irrefutably and is admitted by
the two sides, consequent upon the orders of this Court dated 28.08.2018,
the petitioners accused Dalbir Kaur and Rumeet Kaur have been allowed
anticipatory bail in this petition in spite of the fact that they had never
prayed for such a relief and further that the orders declaring the
petitioners as proclaimed offenders through the orders of learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class dated 16.09.2017 have been set aside. Furthermore,
the learned State counsel has fairly conceded that both the petitioners
have appeared before the trial Court on the basis of orders dated
31.10.2017 and are facing trial since passing of the orders dated
28.08.2018, and that much of the evidence have since come about.
Though this Court is pained over the fact that the fair investigations and
recovery of the alleged articles of Istridhan stand scuttled by such a
4 of 5
08-09-2019 08:48:45 :::
CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 5
means, but at the same time what has come about and discussed herein, it
would subserve no purpose to adjudicate the very legality of orders dated
16.09.2017 and whether the petitioners are entitled to have the same
revoked, as they have virtually been rendered otiose by such an order.
Thus, in the light of the same, nothing sustains in this petition for this
Court to show indulgence and therefore, the same stands disposed off as
such.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
JUDGE
August 22, 2019
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
08-09-2019 08:48:45 :::
