Major Singh vs Gurmeet Kaur And Ors on 23 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Major Singh vs Gurmeet Kaur And Ors on 23 February, 2024

Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill

Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill

                                                                              2024:PHHC:025397

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                  CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M)
                                                                  Date of Decision:- 23.2.2024


                Major Singh                                                           ...Petitioner

                                                       Versus

                Gurmeet Kaur and others                                            ...Respondents


                CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

                Present:            Mr. Yogesh Goel, Mr. Lakshay Goel and
                                    Mr. Simrandeep P. Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

                                    *****


                GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure P-10)

passed by learned SDJM Baghapurana dismissing the protest

petition/complaint under Section 306 IPC filed by the petitioner and also

order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Moga vide which a revision petition filed by the petitioner

challenging aforesaid order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure P-10) has been

dismissed. The petitioner has also laid challenge to order dated 14.7.2018

(Annexure P-5) passed by the Presiding Officer, National Lok Adalat-cum-

SDJM Baghapurana and the cancellation report dated 9.3.2018 (Annexure P-

3) submitted by the police with respect to FIR No. 7 dated 12.1.2018 under

Sections 306/34 IPC, Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga.

2. A few facts necessary to notice are that FIR No. 7 was lodged at Police

Station Baghapurana, District Moga on 12.1.2018 for offence under Sections

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:025397

306/34 IPC by the petitioner/complainant – Major Singh alleging therein that

his son Navdeep Singh @ Ravi is settled in Canada since the last about 11

years. It is alleged that complainant’s son Navdeep Singh got arranged the

marriage of his elder ‘saali’ (wife’s sister) Rupinder Kaur with Manvir

Singh. He also got arranged the marriage of her younger ‘saali’ (sister-in-

law) Gurmeet Kaur with his elder brother Sukhdeep Singh about 2½ years

back. Said Gurmeet Kaur after her marriage proceeded to Canada in the

year 2017 and the entire expenses on her studies and travelling amounting to

about Rs. 15 lacs were borne by the complainant. Although she used to talk

over phone with Sukhdeep Singh during the first month but later she rarely

used to attend to phone calls made to her by complainant’s son Sukhdeep

Singh. Gurmeet Kaur did not maintain good relations with complainant’s

son Sukhdeep Singh on account of which Sukhdeep Singh used to remain

upset. Even Manvir Singh, co-brother (Saadu) of Sukhdeep Singh used to

harass him. Gurmeet Kaur, Manvir Singh as well as Rupinder Kaur (sister

of Gurmeet Kaur) used to pressurize complainant’s son to get his marriage

dissolved by divorce. It is alleged that complainant’s son Sukhdeep Singh

used to remain upset and ultimately committed suicide by shooting himself

with his licensed pistol.

3. The matter was investigated by the police and a cancellation report dated

9.3.2018 (Annexure P-3) was prepared and presented before the Court of

Area Magistrate. The complainant made a statement on 28.5.2018 before

SDJM, Baghapurana to the effect that he agrees with the cancellation report

and has no objection in case the same is accepted. The order passed by the

learned SDJM on 28.5.2018 (Annexure P-4) is reproduced hereinunder :-

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:025397

“Cancellation presented today. It be checked and registered.
Statement of complainant Major Singh recorded in which he stated
that present case bearing FIR No.7, dated 12.01.2018, U/s 306 of
IPC, P.S. Baghapurana was registered on his statement. Today police
official moved cancellation report before this Hon’ble Court. He
agree with the cancellation report and will have not any objection if
accepted by this Hon’ble Court. In view of the statement suffered by
the complainant the file be put up in National Lok Adalat to be held
on 14.07.2018.

Sd/-

                                                                  (Pushpinder Singh)
                                                                  PCS, SDJM/Baghapurana,
                          Date of order:-28.05.2018               UID-PB0285"

4. On the next date i.e. on 14.7.2018 a National Lok Adalat was being held at

Baghapurana and the same very Presiding Officer i.e. SDJM Baghapurana

was the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat as well. While accepting the

cancellation report, the following order was passed on 14.7.2018 (Annexure

P-5) :-

“Complainant Major Singh has already made separate statement on
28.5.2018 that on his statement, FIR No. 7 dated 12.01.2018, U/s 306
of IPC, PS. Baghapurana was registered and he agreed with the
cancellation report submitted by the police in the above said FIR and
he has no objection, if the present cancellation report is accepted. So, in
view of the statement of complainant and facts and circumstances of
the case, cancellation report is accepted. Judicial papers be separated
and consigned to the record room and cancellation file be returned to
the quarter concerned against proper receipt.

                          Pronounced                         Pushpinder Singh, PCS,
                          July 14, 2018               Presiding Officer, National Lok Adalat
                                                      -cum- Sub Divi. Judicial Magistrate.
                                                      Baghapurana UID Number: PB-0285 "




KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
                 CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M)                      4                   2024:PHHC:025397

5. While the cancellation report was accepted on 14.7.2018, it appears that a

few days back i.e. on 5.7.2018, the complainant had also filed a protest

petition (Annexure P-6). The protest petition was put up before Court for the

first time on 14.7.2018, when infact ‘National Lok Adalat’ was being held.

The said protest petition was put up separately before the National Lok

Adalat on 14.7.2018. It appears the Court was not made aware that the

protest petition related to the same matter, in respect of which the

complainant had earlier made a ‘no-objection’ statement and which was also

listed before the Lok Adalat on same very day. The following order was

passed on the protest petition on 14.7.2018 (Annexure P-8) :-

“File taken up in the National Lok Adalat. Compromise not effected.
File be put up on 21.7.2018 for consideration.

Pushpinder Singh, PCS
Presiding Officer National Lok Adalat -cum-

SDJM Baghapurana.

UID Number: PB-0285″

6. When the matter was taken up for consideration on the next date i.e. on

21.7.2018, the Area Magistrate ordered for treating the protest petition as a

complaint and passed the following order :-

“Consideration heard. The present protest petition has been filed
against the cancellation of FIR No.7 dated 12.01.2018. The
cancellation report was presented on 28.05.2018 and on that day the
complainant Major Singh suffered statement that he agree with the
cancellation report and as per his statement the same was accepted on
14.07.2018 and now with this protest petition be again wants to
pursue the matter through this protest petition. In view of the contents
of protest petition same is treated as complaint and fixed for
complainant evidence. The file of cancellation report is ordered to be

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:025397

attached with the present complaint. Now to come up on 18.08.2018
for evidence of the complainant.

Sd/-

                                                                (Pushpinder Singh)PCS,
                                                                SDJM/Baghapurana,
                        Date of order:-21.07.2018                UID-PB0285"

7. Pursuant to passing of the aforesaid order dated 21.7.2018, the trial Court

recorded the statement of the complainant’s witnesses CW-1 Major Singh,

CW-2 Jaswinder Kaur wife of petitioner-Major Singh, CW-3 Constable

Harwinder Singh and CW-4 Dr. Reetu Jain. The trial Court considered the

evidence led by the complainant and upon marshalling the same reached at

the conclusion that no case was made out to summon the accused. The

relevant extract from the said impugned order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure

P-10) is reproduced herein-under :-

“………….I am also of the view that blatant attempt has also been
made by the complainant to make mockery of the process of law,
even by retracting from the statement given in the cancellation report
on 28.05.2018, as per which he agreed with the cancellation report
and suffered a statement that he was having no objection if
cancellation report is accepted by the court. Thereafter, on
14.07.2018, the cancellation report was accepted by the court. I am
of the view that predecessor of this court again on 21.07.2018 had
treated the protest petition filed by the complainant as a private
criminal complaint, but I am of the view that once cancellation
report was accepted on 14.07.2018, then regarding the same
occurrence, protest petition cannot be filed unless any new
circumstances come to the fore. So I am of the view that during
investigation before the police and before the court in the
cancellation report, Major Singh complainant had taken the stand
that due to some misunderstanding he took the name of accused
persons and got them entangled in the criminal proceedings, but
thereafter again he took somersault and again filed the protest

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:025397

petition on 04.07.2018. But I am of the view that once the
cancellation report had been accepted by the court on 14.07.2018,
then subsequently on 21.07.2018 on the same cancellation report
which had already been accepted by the court, the protest petition
could not be filed on the same facts and if the complainant was
aggrieved by order of the criminal court dated 14.07.2018 regarding
acceptance of the cancellation report, then he would have challenged
the same before the Appellate Court, but the order dated 14.07.2018
has never been challenged by the complainant Major Singh. So, it is
still intact and has never been set aside by any competent court of
law. Moreover, I am of the view that there is no such provision of
review in the criminal procedure code and cancellation report which
had already been accepted by the court on 14.07 2018 could not be
revived on 18.08.2018 as criminal court after pronouncing the order
became functus officio and it cannot recall its own order. So, I am of
the view that credibility of complainant Major Singh is totally
demolished by his conduct and his sole motive which appears from
the perusal of the file shows that he has axe to grind against the
accused persons as time and again he is misusing the process of law
to achieve his ulterior motives. So, I am of the view that even though
at the stage of summoning only sufficient grounds to proceed against
accused persons is to be seen by the court, but in the present case no
case is made out to summon the accused persons. So, the present
criminal complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the
record room.”

8. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure P-

10) by way of filing a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Judge

but even the Additional District Judge, Moga dismissed the revision petition

vide order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-12) leading to filing of the instant

petition.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is a case

where there has been a miscarriage of justice inasmuch as on the day when

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:025397

the cancellation report was accepted vide order dated 14.7.2018 (Annexure

P-5), a protest petition had already been filed before the Area Magistrate on

5.7.2018 which was not taken into account at all and the Area Magistrate

proceeded to accept the cancellation report on the basis of a statement of

complainant recorded more than a month earlier which infact had been got

recorded by pressurizing the petitioner. It has further been submitted that

since the protest petition which was subsequnetly considered and treated as a

complaint was dismissed solely on ground of maintainability on the

premises that cancellation report already stood accepted, therefore, it is a fit

case where all the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be examined

afresh.

10. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions.

11. A perusal of the FIR and the other documents annexed with the petition

would show that the complainant alleges that his son used to remain upset

and on account of respondent No. 1 refusing to talk to him despite having

been married to complainant’s son and on account of the complainant’s son

being told by the private respondents to get his marriage with respondent no.

1 – Gurmeet Kaur dissolved. However, it is not in dispute that after the

marriage, while Gurmeet Kaur was abroad, the complainant’s son was in

India all the time. While the complainant may have borne the expenditure

incurred on travelling and studies of respondent No. 1 but the same

apparently was on account of the fact that respondent no. 1 was daughter-in-

law of the complainant and the complainant being part of the family could

be expected to bear the expenses. It could be a case where complainant’s

son went in depresssion on account of the fact that he was not taken abroad

by respondent no. 1 but in any case the alleged conduct of complainant’s

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6804-2024 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:025397

daughter-in-law Gurmeet Kaur in not being good to her husband Sukhdeep

Singh (deceased) inasmuch as she did not attend to his calls or that the

accused while residing abroad used to press upon deceased to divorce his

wife particularly when respondent no. 1 was residing abroad i.e. away from

deceased cannot be said to be sufficient to fall within the ambit of ‘abetment

to commit suicide’.

12. Still further, this Court finds that the petitioner himself cannot be said to be a

very reliable as he has been taking different stands before the trial Court.

While on one occasion he had stated that he has no objection for acceptance

of the cancellation report but subsequently he took a volte-face and stated

that he did not agree with the cancellation report.

13. Though this Court finds that the petitioner before filing this petition never

chose to assail order dated 14.7.2018 (Annexure P-5), vide which

cancellation report was accepted five years back also finds the learned

SDJM ought not to have entertained protest petition once cancellation report

already stood accepted, but this Court need not delve into these aspects as in

any case, the facts of the case when examined in totality do not warrant that

the matter be re-opened.

14. The petition is found to be sans merit and is hereby dismissed.




                23.2.2024                                                  ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
                kamal                                                            Judge

                               Whether speaking /reasoned       Yes / No

                               Whether Reportable               Yes / No




KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *