Crl Misc 16725-M of 2004 Mr.Y.M.Bhagirath, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 08-01-2004 registered under Section 306 IPC at PS Qadian, district Batala. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from HC Sukhjinder Singh has made a statement that petition has been rendered infructuous as after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner has been acquitted on 23-01-2006. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, this petition is dismissed as infructuous. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 51310 of 2006 in Crl A 1626-SB of 2006 Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant Mr.Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana It is not in dispute that against the sentence of one year and 6 months, the applicant has already undergone more than one year and one month's of sentence. This application is allowed. Sentence of the applicant-appellant is suspended. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Faridabad. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 41076 of 2006 in Crl Appeal 559-SB of 2006 Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence. Notice with regard to appellant No.3-Pritam Kaur was issued only because she is stated to be 73 years of age. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is not able to give any assistance as the IO has not come. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants has produced a voters' Identity Card which reflects the age of Pritam Kaur as 67 years as on 01-01- 2000.The photostat copy of the Election Commission's Identity Card is taken on record. Considering the age of Pritam Kaur-appellant No.3, this application is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Mansa. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 41333-M of 2006 Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for respondent NO.4 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to safeguard the lives of the petitioners by providing police protection. Apprehension is because the petitioners got married through love marriage against the wishes of respondent No.4 . Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has stated that the allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Respondent NO.4 has come to know about the marriage of the petitioners and has no objection of their continuing as husband and wife. It is directed that in case the petitioners feel threatened on any count, they may file an application before respondent No.2-SSP, Hoshiarpur who shall take immediate steps to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. This petition is disposed of with the above observations. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 36341-M of 2006 Mr.G.C.Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents 2 to 5 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners as they have married by way of inter caste marriage against the desires of respondent No.6. Although notice of motion was issued only to respondent No.6 but despite service, he has not put in appearance. Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Ravinder Singh states that the police having come to know about the dispute between the parties is ceased of the matter and is conducting enquiry. Affidavit shall be filed. Adjourned to 17-10-2006. Reply be filed within 2 weeks from today. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 18620-M of 2006 Mr.V.P.Singh, Advocate, for Mr.B.S.Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the respondents to conduct an enquiry on the complaints filed by the petitioner i.e. Annexures P-5 to P-9. Reply has been filed by Rakesh Arya ASP, Hisar, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 . Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn my attention to the Annexure R-2 to contend that enquiry has been conducted and, therefore, the cause does not survive. It has also been pointed out that petitioner is running a Karyana shop, however, under the guise of this Karyana shop, liquor is served to the people in the vicinity. Because the police officials have proceeded against the petitioner, in view of such allegations, the complaints have been filed against the police officials. Having considered the matter, I do not find any reason to issue directions. Dismissed. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 48740-M of 2006 Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab Learned State counsel seeks time as the IO has not come and, therefore, no assistance can be given to the Court by him. Notice of motion was issued and interim relief was not granted. Considering the fact that no assistance is coming forth from the respondent-State and the apprehension of the petitioners is reasonable, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions :- i) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required ; ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;and iii)the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 48128-M of 2006 Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar,AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a public servant. The allegation is that the petitioner paid illegal gratification to Karamvir Grover for fabricating a false birth certificate. Karamvir Grover has already been allowed the concession of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the Special Court. These facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State on instructions from HC Jit Singh. In view of the fact that the public servant himself has been allowed the concession of bail, this petition is allowed on the following conditions. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions :- i)the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required ; ii)the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;and iiii)the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 47814-M of 2006 Mr.N.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered unde rSections 363/366/376/451/34 IPC. Considering the fact that the petitioner No.2 is 14 years of age, the arrest was stayed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from ASI Jaswinder Singh has made a statement that petitioners have joined the investigation and are not required for further interrogation. As petitioner No.1 is a lady and petitioner No.2, as noticed above, is a minor, this petition is allowed on the following conditions. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions :- i)the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required ; ii)the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;and iii)the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 44769-M of 2006 Mr.K.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case lodged under Sections 420/466/467/468/471 IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from HC Partap Singh has made a statement that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner has been settled and the compromise has been effected and petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. In view of the statement made by the learned State counsel, this petition is allowed on the following conditions. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions :- i)the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required ; ii)the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;and iii)the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 39236-M of 2006 Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case lodged under Sections 406/420/506 IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from Khushbir Singh ASI has made a statement that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for any further investigation or custodial interrogation. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-State,this petition is allowed. Order dated 11-07-2006 is hereby made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :- i) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and iii)the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. This order shall enure till 10 days after the petitioner receives a notice of filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.c. Within which period, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for regular bail. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 49860-M of 2006 Mr.L.S.Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case lodged under Sections 326/328/506/34 IPC. It has been contended that for an accident that allegedly took place on 06-10-2005, FIR has been registered on 01-04-2006 i.e. after nearly 6 months. There is no medical report to invoke Section 326 IPC. Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the State seeks time on the ground that the brief is not available. The matter cannot be argued in view of the nature of the case and also because liberty of the petitioners is involved. Petitioners were taken into custody on 01-04-2006, therefore, police remand cannot possibly be taken and, therefore, their further custody shall not serve any purpose. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, this petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/.Duty Magistrate, Gurdaspur. 5-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 47243-M of 2006 Mr.A.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case lodged under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the quantity of poppy husk recovered was non-commercial. It is further contended that the petitioner is a lady and is confined in jail along with her one year old child. Jail atmosphere is not conducive for the bringing up of the child for the obvious reasons. Notice of motion was issued on 10-08-2006. While noticing these facts, on 24-08-2006, the State counsel sought time on the plea that his brief is not available. The State counsel has made a statement today also saying that the brief is not available with him. Considering the fact that liberty of the petitioner is involved particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is a lady with child who is confined in jail, the case is being decided on the basis of record. I have gone through the record of the case. Recovery of poppy husk as weighing 50 kgs is alleged. As per schedule, 50 kgs has been reflected in column number 6 as the commercial quantity. Commercial quantity has been defined under Section 2(viia) of the NDPS Act which provides for “means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in official gazette”. Prima facie finding the quantity of Narcotics to be non commercial and considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady with one year old child in jail, this petition is allowed. Crl Misc 47243-M of 2006 --2-- Bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Sangrur. 05-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 45541-M of 2006 Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in view of the facts stated by the learned counsel for the State that there is one version by way of statements of Bir Singh, Birmati and Arvind that it was the petitioner who fired the shot on account of which Raj Kumar died. It is, however, pleaded that the petitioner is about 75 years of age. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the voter card wherein the petitioner is shown as 61 years of age as on 01-01-1994. Respondents are directed to verify the age of the petitioner. Adjourned to 14-09-2006. 5-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 41092-M of 2006 Mr.P.S.Hundal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab Mr.Rajiv Verma, Advocate This is a petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case lodged under Sections 420/376/34/120-B IPC. It is contended that rape would not be made out in view of the admitted circumstances that the petitioner has promised to marry the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that now good sense has prevailed upon the petitioner and the complainant, namely,Ranjeet Kaur and they have agreed to get married on 25-12-2006. The complainant is withdrawing the case against the petitioner in view of this fact and would be making statement before the trial Court in view of the compromise. The complainant has not yet been examined as a witness. It is pleaded that the complainant would file an application before this Court along with an affidavit indicating the factum of compromise. Adjourned to 12-09-2006. 5-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge Crl Misc 38100-M of 2006 Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Eklavya Kumar, AAG, Punjab This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in a case lodged under Sections 323/324/325/326/341/148/149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was in Southi-Arabia and, therefore, the order declaring him proclaimed offender cannot be taken into account for consideration of his prayer. It is contended that co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted vide judgement dated 14- 07-2004 as witnesses were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. The petitioner has been in custody since 30-05-2006. Learned counsel for the respondent-State seeks time as the brief is not available with him. Vide order dated 10-07-2006 , notice of motion was issued for 24-08-2006. On 24-08-2006 also a similar prayer was made on behalf of the respondent. No further adjournment can be granted in view of the fact that liberty of the petitioner is involved. Having considered the matter, this petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Malerkotla. 5-09-2006 (Ajai Lamba) * Mandeep * Judge CR 4866 of 2006 Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 05-08-2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, whereby an application filed by the petitioners for release of the amount of compensation which was ordered to be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank has been declined by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners states as the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground that no evidence has been produced by the petitioners, he may be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one and to produce the evidence in support thereof before the Tribunal for the release of the amount of compensation which was ordered to be deposited in a fixed deposit in some nationalised bank. Allowed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioners to file a fresh application for release of the amount of compensation in accordance with law. 14-09-2006 {Ajay Kumar Mittal} *Mandeep * Judge CM 8527-C of 2006 and RSA 1180 of 2002 Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1 This is an application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. It has been averred in the application that parties to the appeal have compromised the matter. A copy of the compromise is placed on the record as Annexure A-1.It has further been prayed that the appeal be decided in terms of the compromise. Notice of this application. Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent No.1. As per the compromise, the plaintiff-respondent has agreed to withdraw the civil suit filed by her bearing No.240 dated 15-05-1996 out of which the present appeal has arisen. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute this fact. Let the statements of both the parties be recorded. 4-09-2006 {Ajay Kumar Mittal} *Mandeep * Judge Statement of Khushwinder Singh(who is identified by Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate) son of Chand Singh, aged 33 years, resident of village Jaga Tehsil and District Mansa, Agriculturist on SA I have entered into a compromise which is placed on record as Annexure A-1 with Amarjit Kaur-the contesting plaintiff-respondent. The compromise has been entered into out of my own free will and without any force or coercion. Annexure A-1 also bears my signatures. In terms of this compromise, the appeal be allowed and the suit be dismissed. RO&AC {Ajay Kumar Mittal} 14-09-2006 Judge Statement of Amarjit Kaur,(who is identified by Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate) adopted daughter of Mohinder Singh, wife of Bhola Singh, resident of Lehewala, tehsil and district Mansa, aged 25 years on SA I have entered into a compromise which is placed on record as Annexure A-1 with Khushwinder Singh-appellant. The compromise Annexure A-1 has been entered into out of my own free will and without any force or coercion. The compromise Annexure A-1 also bears my signatures. In terms of this compromise, the appeal be allowed and the suit be dismissed. RO&AC {Ajay Kumar Mittal} 14-09-2006 Judge RSA 1180 of 2002 Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusing the record and in view of the statements made by Khushwinder Singh and Amarjit Kaur who are identified by their respective counsel, this appeal is allowed and the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate Court is set aside and consequently Civil Suit No.240 of 15-05-1996 is dismissed. 14-09-2006 {Ajay Kumar Mittal} *Mandeep * Judge CIVIL REVISION 4661 OF 2006 Satinderpal Singh & others v Samarjit Sandhi & others Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan ,Advocate, for the petitioners CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a prayer that order dated 23-05-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar, be quashed whereby an application filed by the defendants-petitioners for de-exhibiting of unproved documents and return of those documents to the plaintiffs-respondents has been rejected. The trial Court while deciding the application observed as under :- “The bare reading of the aforesaid section clearly shows that a document 30 years old produced from proper custody is per se admissible. Therefore, in the present case documents exhibited PW2 has come from proper custody and the same is 30 years old. So far as admissibility of other documents is concerned, the applicants-defendants did not incorporate the documents specifically. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present application. The facts of the case law cited supra are not applicable in the present case. Hence, the present application under consideration is dismissed.” No illegality or infirmity could be found in the aforesaid order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CR 4661 of 2006 --2-- Finding no merit in this revision, the same is hereby dismissed. 14-09-2006 {Ajay Kumar Mittal} *Mandeep * Judge CIVIL REVISION 4889 OF 2006 Mam Chand v Daya Singh & others Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL In this revision petition, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 09-05-2006 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the trial Court has set aside the ex-parte judgement dated 30-04-1996. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “1.Whether the defendants Daya and etc. were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the Court on 16-04-1996?OPP 2.Whether the applicants-defendants never authorised Shri Madan Lal Advocate for appearing in the suit on their behalf?OPP 3.Whether the application for setting aside ex-parte decree is not maintainable?OPD” The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the applicants-defendants have established that there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte judgement and decree. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the respondents. No ground for exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out in this case which may warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CR 4889 of 2006 --2-- Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and decide the same by 30-06-2007. 14-09-2006 {Ajay Kumar Mittal} *Mandeep * Judge CM 8527-C of 2006 and RSA 1180 of 2002 Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants Mr.P.s.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1 This is an application filed under order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. It has been averred in the application that parties to the appeal have compromise the matter. A copy of the compromise is placed on the record as Annexure A-1. It has further been prayed that the appeal be decided in terms of the compromise. Notice of this application. Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent No.1. As per the compromise, the plaintiff-respondent has agreed that the present appeal be allowed and the civil suit filed by her hearing No.240 dated 15-05-1996 out of which the present appeal has arisen, be dismissed. Let the statements of both the parties be recorded. 14-09-2006 {Ajay Kumar Mittal} *Mandeep * Judge CM 8587-C of 2006 in RSA 2937 of 2004 Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant This is an application for restroation of regular second appeal which was dismissed in default on 18-08-2006.