LPA No. 1472 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1472 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 15.03.2011 Jaswinder Singh ---Appellant Versus Manjit Kaur and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 9 and 10. Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 12 Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 11 and 13. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by one Jaswinder Singh, ASI, is directed against orders dated 08.09.2010 and 13.09.2010. According to the observations made by the learned Single Judge, ASI Jaswinder Singh was present in the LPA No. 1472 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Court and he was posted at Police Post Shiahar, under Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. The learned Single Judge has also observed that in the matrimonial dispute of Manjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh, who were petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 7, the aforesaid Jaswinder Singh, ASI was inter-meddling. Therefore, the learned Single Judge issued a direction that he be transferred outside District Ludhiana and a compliance report was to be obtained. In the subsequent order dated 13.09.2010 passed on the application filed by Jaswinder Singh, ASI, seeking modification of order dated 08.09.2010, the learned Single Judge again noticed that the appellant had made candid admission when he was present in person before the learned Single Judge on 08.09.2010 and proceeded to record as under: “Keeping in view that fact that due to uncalled for interference by the said police official, the marital relationship between petitioner No.1 (Manjit Kaur) and respondent No. 7 (Ranjit Singh) has run into bad weather and which would cause immerse adverse effect on the overall development of the female child born out of their wedlock, it is directed that ASI Jaswinder Singh shall not be posted/ re-transferred to/ in District Ludhiana at least for a period of two years. In case it is found that ASI Jaswinder is still interfering in the private affairs of the couple, the Inspector General of LPA No. 1472 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Police, Jalandhar Range, shall take immediate disciplinary action against him and submit a compliance report to this Court. Any deviation from these directions shall be viewed seriously. In order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the unfortunate matrimonial dispute, the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 27.10.2010.” 2. Mr. P.S. Brar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC impleading Jaswinder Singh, Head Constable, was filed on 04.02.2010, who was then posted at Police Chowki Katani Kalan, Police Sation Samrala, District Ludhiana and therefore, the appellant is different Jaswinder Singh than the one sought to be impleaded by respondent No.1-Manjit Kaur and that application was never taken up. However, Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has stated that respondent No.1 wanted the aforesaid Jaswinder Singh also to become as a party. Therefore, the appellant, who was also responsible, cannot be ignored and there is no question of mistaken identity. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj has further argued that principal dispute between respondent No.1- Manjit Kaur and respondent No.7-Ranjit Singh has been decided by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to Ludhiana Police to submit final investigation report LPA No. 1472 of 2010 (O&M) -4- in FIR No. 14, dated 15.02.2010, Police Post Shiahar, under Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. 3. In view of the above, it has become patent that ASI Jaswinder Singh, who was posted at Police Post Shiahar, under Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana, is the same person who is the appellant before us and who was present before the learned Single Judge. There is no doubt with regard to his identity and he was ordered to be transferred. In fact, he has been transferred out of District Ludhiana on the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The matrimonial dispute between the parties is not still finally settled. Therefore, it is not possible for us to make any comment with regard to direction issued by the learned Single Judge because it was found that the appellant was inter-meddling with the private affairs of respondent Nos.1 and 7. There was justification for the learned Single Judge to make observation in his orders dated 08.09.2010 and 13.09.2010. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE March 15, 2011 Atul