IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of Decision:14.11.2019
Pritam Singh and another …..Petitioners
State of Punjab and another …..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawadha, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
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 :::
(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
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 :::
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)
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 09-12-2019 00:50:33 :::