SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pritam Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 14 November, 2019

CRM-M-38809-2018 1


206 CRM-M-38809-2018
Date of Decision:14.11.2019
Pritam Singh and another …..Petitioners


State of Punjab and another …..Respondents


Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawadha, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.



Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. impugning the order dated 02.07.2018(Annexure P-8) passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, whereby bailable warrants

were issued against the petitioners as well as the order dated 07.07.2018

(Annexure P-9), whereby in a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under

Sections 406, Section498-A, Section506, Section120-B read with Section 34 IPC, non-bailable

warrants were issued against the petitioners.

On September 16, 2019, this Court had passed the following


“This petition has been filed by Pritam Singh and Surinder
Kaur, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively,
of the Harpreet Kaur, who was married with Kamaldeep Singh
(son of the petitioners), seeking quashing of order dated
02.07.2018 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 07.07.2018

1 of 3
09-12-2019 00:50:32 :::
CRM-M-38809-2018 2

(Annexure P-9) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Vide order dated 02.07.2018 (Annexure P-8), bailable
warrants were issued whereas vide order dated 07.07.2018
(Annexure P-9) non-bailable warrants were issued against the

Counsel for the petitioner says that vide judgment dated
01.08.2017 (Annexure P-7), Judicial Magistrate Ist Class had
dismissed the complaint filed by respondent no.2-complainant
under Sections 406, 498A, 506, 120-B and Section 34 IPC
against the petitioners, observing that there is no sufficient
ground to proceed against the accused persons namely Pritam
Singh and Surinder Kaur, the petitioners herein as well as
their daughter namely Navjot Kaur.

He has argued that despite the complaint having been
dismissed qua the petitioners, learned Magistrate has issued
bailable warrants vide order Annexure P-8, followed by order
Annexure P-9 issuing non-bailable warrants against them.
Thus, learned Magistrate has acted against his own judgment
dated 01.08.2017.

The relevant paragraph no.7 of the judgment dated
01.08.2017(Annexure P-7) reads as under:-

“7. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant
and perusing the record on the file, I am of the
considered view that (there) are no sufficient grounds to
proceed against accused persons namely Pritam Singh,
Surinder Kaur and Navjot Kaur under the present
complaint. The present complainant is hereby dismissed
qua them. Further that offence under Sectionsection 498-A IPC
is prima facie out at this stage against the accused
Kamaldeep Singh. Let accused Kamaldeep Singh be
summoned to face trial for offence under Section 498-A
IPC on filing of PF/Copies of documents etc. within
three days by the complainant.

This Court vide order dated 06.09.2018, had sought a
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 09-12-2019 00:50:33 :::
CRM-M-38809-2018 3

report from the trial Court to clarify whether presence of the
petitioners is required as an accused or as witnesses and in
reference to the said communication, learned Magistrate has
submitted her explanation dated 19.11.2018 that the
petitioners Pritam Singh and Surjit Kaur would be required
only as accused. However, the record reveals that there is no
accused namely Surjit Kaur in the case in hand. This Court
finds that learned Magistrate has not co-related the facts with
the complete judicial record while submitting her report.

Therefore, the Magistrate is once again directed to
furnish her detailed explanation in this regard, which shall be
duly cross-checked by learned District and Sessions Judge,

Adjourned to 14.11.2019.

Interim order to continue.”

As a consequence thereof, a communication dated 04.10.2019

has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana,

wherein on the basis of judicial record, it has been reported that only

accused Kamaldeep Singh has been summoned and the petitioners-Pritam

Singh and Surinder Kaur(wrongly mentioned as Surjit Kaur) were never

ordered to be summoned as accused.

This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent


In view of the conceded position, the present petition is allowed

and the orders dated 02.07.2018(Annexure P-8) and 07.07.2018(Annexure

P-9) passed by the Court below are hereby quashed.

November 14, 2019 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 09-12-2019 00:50:33 :::

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