CRR-3181-2016 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3181-2016 (OM)
Date of Decision: October 31, 2018
Jasbir Singh and another
Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another …Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab
Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
This is a civil revision petition that has been filed seeking to
challenge the order dated 04.06.2016, by which the Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar has allowed the application of the complainant- Rajbir
Kaur to record her evidence through video conferencing.
In brief, the facts of the case are that Rajbir Kaur (a resident of
Australia) solemnized marriage with Karamvir Singh, however the marriage
did not survive for any length of time, the complainant-Rajbir Kaur initiated
a case under the Domestic and Family Violence Act, 1989 and sought a
protection order from her husband Karamvir Singh. An FIR was also
1 of 4
05-11-2018 04:52:03 :::
CRR-3181-2016 (OM) 2
registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar city bearing FIR
No.35 dated 09.03.2012 under Sections 406, 498A of Indian Penal Code
alleging that her marriage had been performed in India on 21.03.2009 and at
the time of marriage her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their
capacity and financial status. Details of the dowry given as well as the
marriage expenditure were detailed in the FIR. Details of the harassment
meted out to her were also specified in the FIR. Eventually a decree of
divorce was obtained between the parties on 12.09.2013. In the proceedings
that had been initiated under the aforesaid FIR, the complainant moved an
application for having her statement recorded through video conference,
which application was dismissed by the JMIC, Jalandhar vide order dated
12.12.2014. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2014, the
complainant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar
which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner herein has filed the instant petition
challenging the order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
contends that the allegations as set out in the FIR are totally incorrect and he
has been falsely implicated in the said case. It is further contended that
from the very beginning the attitude of the complainant was stubborn and
non-cooperative and only to harass the petitioner and his family members
that the present FIR is being proceeded under. It is argued that charges have
been framed but the complainant is not coming forth to have her statement
recorded. It is further argued that no cogent reasons have been made as to
2 of 4
05-11-2018 04:52:03 :::
CRR-3181-2016 (OM) 3
why the complainant cannot travel to India. It is also argued that the
petitioner herein has not created any hindrance in her travel as put forth in
the application seeking evidence to be recorded through video conference.
Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant-respondent submits that the complainant has a minor daughter-
Mannat and there is no one else other than herself to look after her daughter
and if she is made to travel to India, the minor child would suffer in her
studies.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record and the impugned order.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has allowed the
application of the complainant-applicant by taking note of the fact that the
minor daughter is school going and it would be difficult for the complainant
to leave her alone and travel to India to have her evidence recorded.
Reliance was placed upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of
Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai and another, 2003(2) 434, RCR(crl.)
770 in which it was held that evidence by way of video conference can be
recorded.
“Thus in cases where the witness is necessary for the ends of
justice and the attendance of such witness cannot be procured
without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which,
under the circumstances of the case would be unreasonable, the
Court may dispense with such attendance and issue a commission
for examination of the witness. As indicated earlier Dr.
Greenberg has refused to come to India to give evidence. His
evidence appears to be necessary for the ends of Justice. Courts
in India cannot procure his attendance. Even otherwise to
procure attendance of a witness from a far of country like USA3 of 4
05-11-2018 04:52:03 :::
CRR-3181-2016 (OM) 4would generally involve delay, expense and/or inconvenience. In
such cases commissions could be issued for recording evidence.
Normally a commission would involve recording evidence at the
place where the witness is. However advancement in science and
technology has now made it possible to record such evidence by
way of video conferencing in the town/city where the Court is.
Thus in cases where the attendance of a witness cannot be
procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience
the Court could consider issuing a commission to record the
evidence by way of video conferencing.”
Once the Apex Court itself has permitted that the evidence can be
recorded through video conference, the only thing remains to be seen is
whether there is any infirmity in the order so passed. Taking into account
the fact that the complainant has a minor child who is school going, it
would definitely cause her certain hardship to travel to India on account of
having to leave the minor child alone or bear the necessary expenditure of
getting a visa and tickets for both. Recording of evidence through video-
conferencing is a recognized method of getting the evidence recorded
hence this hardship can certainly be avoided by allowing the evidence to be
recorded through video conference.
Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated
04.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and dismiss
the present revision petition.
Dismissed.
October 31, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
05-11-2018 04:52:03 :::