SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurpreet Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 27 September, 2018

CRM-M-24710-2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

249 CRM-M-24710-2017 OM)
Date of decision:27.09.2018

Gurpreet Kaur and others

…Petitioners
Versus

State of Punjab and others

…. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

Present: Mr.Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. (ORAL)

In the present petition, petitioners have sought for quashing of

complaint No. 166/1/15 dated 10.12.2015, summoning order dated

18.01.2017 and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom. Allegations

are relating to quarrel among the family members that too in respect of

matrimonial dispute like taking away household articles etc.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that

Ist petitioner’s husband filed an application for taking action but due to

inaction on the part of police authority he moved CRM-M-30327 of 2015

and it was dismissed as withdrawn. He had suffered order. In order to over

come the order dated 12.10.2015 passed in CRM-M-30327-2015 complaint

has been filed. Present complaint is the counter blast to FIR No. 18 dated

12.09.2015 under Sections 498A, 406 IPC in which petitioner No.1 is

complainant. It is only to pressurise the petitioners.

1 of 2
07-10-2018 03:37:21 :::
CRM-M-24710-2017 (OM) 2

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that perusal of the order dated 12.10.2015 read with complaint

there is no hurdle in respect of filing complaint against the petitioners. It is

further submitted that there is serious allegations against the petitioners and

the trial court passed the summoning order after examination of witnesses

and record where is clear evidence with regard to petitioners conduct i.e.

CCTV Photographs. So, there is no ground to interfere with the trial court

order and complaint. Supreme Court in latest decisions titled as Manish

Teegal and others Versus State of M.P. and another reported in 2018 (1)

(Criminal Law Journal) 348 read with Kamlesh Kumari and others versus

State of U.P. and another reported in 2015 AIR (SCW) 3700 held that if

serious allegation and sufficient evidence are available constituting offence,

court shall not entertain to quashing of complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Thus, petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, petition stands

dismissed.

27.09.2018 ( P.B.BAJANTHRI )
pooja saini JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasons Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
07-10-2018 03:37:21 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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