SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dalbir Kaur And Oths vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2019


CRM-M No.40910 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 22nd August, 2019

Dalbir Kaur another
… Petitioners
State of Punjab another
… Respondents


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.


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


A coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated

28.08.2018, passed the following directions:-


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:-

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

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


August 22, 2019
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
08-09-2019 08:48:45 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation