Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHA RANI & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Asha Rani & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. - CRM-35130-m-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 3001 (9 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.35130-M of 2004

Date of decision: May 17, 2006.

Asha Rani & Ors.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

State of Punjab & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: None for the petitioners.

Shri B.S. Sewak, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

Shri Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record.

The case has been called twice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present.

The prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 94 dated 4.3.2004, under section 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar and the proceedings arising therefrom.

Originally, the petition was filed on behalf of three persons, namely, Asha Rani @ Usha Rani who is mother-in-law of the complainant respondent No.2 (Anjali Verma). This petition qua her was, however, dismissed on 27.8.2004. So far as the remaining petitioners, Veena Rani @ Beena Rani and Adarsh Kumar are concerned, they are sister and maternal uncle, respectively, of the husband of the complainant respondent No.2.

Various contentions have been raised in support of the prayer made in this petition.

However, Learned State Counsel has pointed out that during the pendency of this petition, charges have already been framed against the petitioners and the most crucial prosecution witness, namely, respondent No.2 complainant has also been examined.

In this view of the matter, no case for quashing of the impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, is made out.

Consequently, this petition is dismissed.

However, having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 Veena Rani appears to be a married sister of the husband of respondent No.2 complainant, liberty is granted to her to move an application for grant of exemption from personal appearance and if any such application is moved, the trial court is directed to grant her exemption from personal appearance, however, subject to the following conditions:- (i) she will be represented through counsel; (ii) will not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) will not dispute her identity as accused; and (iv) will have no objection if the prosecution evidence is also recorded in her absence but in the presence of her counsel; (v) any such other conditions which the trial court may like to impose upon her.

Disposed of.

May 17, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


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.