Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHEILENDER KUMAR & ORS versus SMT.SEEMA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sheilender Kumar & Ors v. Smt.Seema - CRM-57096-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12872 (19 December 2006)

CRM No.57096-M of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 11.1.2007

Sheilender Kumar and others

....Petitioners

Vs.

Smt.Seema

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

----

Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.262/03 filed under Sections 148, 149, 313, 323, 506, 498-A and 406 IPC, summoning order dated 31.1.2003 and the order committing the case for trial by the Sessions Court on 27.1.2005.

Primary grounds raised by the petitioners are that the summoning was ordered without seeing if any prima facie offence was made out against the petitioners. Counsel further states that the Magistrate is not required to act as a Post Office in committing the case for higher Court without really appreciating and finding that the offences are made our from the allegations and the evidence adduced.

Summoning order was passed after recording the evidence of complainant and other witnesses, who fully supported the version given in her complaint. Counsel contends that the oral testimony of the complainant is not supported by any medical evidence. That cannot be taken as essential CRM No.57096-M of 2006 2

requirement under law and would be seen by the trial court while deciding the case on merits. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the case of S.W.Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2002) 1 SCC 241 to urge that the summoning order should not be passed mechanically and it should indicate a judicious application of mind. There is no dispute with this proposition of law. In view of the evidence led before the Magistrate and annexed with the petition, it cannot be said that the view of the Magistrate as taken would not reveal commission of offences alleged prima facie. Complainant has specifically made allegations of demand of dowry and has also made allegations against all the accused for giving her a beating, which led to her mis-carriage. Contention of counsel that allegation of miscarriage is not supported by any medical evidence cannot be appreciated at this stage and can appropriately be seen and appreciated during the trial. It can be noticed that there may be hardly any requirement of medical examination in case of mis-carriage. Other judgments relied upon by the counsel in the cases of Hajinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab 2004 (4) RCC 429 and Anju Bala and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2006 (3) RCC 307 relate to the quashing of FIR in respect of certain relatives of the complainant. In the present case, specific allegations are made against all the accused for which they are liable to be summoned.

No legal ground is made out for quashing the complaint. The same is dismissed.

(Ranjit Singh)

Judge

11.1.2007

AS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.