Sukhwinder Kaur And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Another
!
!! SUKHWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ... Petitioners "#$ % & '
()'
%" % *
! " # $%&
''''' " % * + #,- ( ) & *+ , , - ./0# 12 ( 2 2(13 4$(5 *21 6 *2 /, & 7 " 8& 30&5 &&- % %% & - ( 2(+ 3 4 $5 !7 # ( %&7 :!
"& &&% ; & % ! % & % # 3%& 5 & ./0# 12 ( 2 2(1 *21 6 *2 /, & 7 " 8&
-230&5 3 4 $(5 ! & % %
& %&7& / %
%%% ! !&& ! 7 < = 2 2 2 ! /&&- % /&&-
! %% & % ! 7% &
* / %& % 8&
. ,&&& # (* (1 2< 2 )8& . ,&&& $
!"#$ %
& ' (
) * ! +
, ) -
,
.
/
/
%
0
/
'
+ )
1
-3-
$ )&& , %
>
!
""
#
$ %
.%20
1
)1
1 1
1 + (
*2% +3+
1
1
4 ) 1
+ 4 4 4 .%50"
& '
(
'
& '
) '*6
71
" ,
8 > )
1
)
$ .'90 )
)
"
1 1
)
(
+ 1 (
)
) .'0 1
1
'%9.50 +3+
*2% +3+ .'%0
:
1 ) "
*2% +3+
4 4
-4- )
;
1 1 + 1 (
*2% +3+ ) 1
)1
1(
)
.''0
) 1
)
1 +3+
+
*2%!
1
+ : )
;
1
1
'%9 +3+ ) 1
.'*0
*2% +3+ 1 ( <(;
1 , )
1
+
1
( )
;
1 6 + ) ( "
*2% +3+
6 ) 6+ (
(
1
+ )
( ;
)
+
)
);
#
1
1
+
) )
1
) ) & & & & ! - %
-5- !&7 ? @&%, %
+
,
* .
$
$
! ! && &4 ! *+!%%A 7 ? @& % , %
> - .
/ # #
+
$
12$*
%4 $1'1
1 1
8 $1'$
*2% ) 6+ )
1
)
"
) 6+ = $1'
)
6+ :
! "
#
1 ) 1
)
)
>
) 1 )
'%9 + +
3 5?' :
*2% )
;
1 $1'! "
1: (
*2% 6+ )
( = $1'2 > 6+ 1
1 ( = .0
.0 )
1
= $1'%
! "
# 1 :
) ) ) )
( )
1 =
-6- $1'1 "
(
*2%
1 6 + )
)
6
) ) )
1: ) ) )
)
1 )
) 1
= $1'
-
1
)
)
)
( :
= $1'3 +
) )
) )
: ) = $1'0 "
6 + :
) 1
1
)
=
$1'$
(
@2
@5 ) <
) )
;1 )
1
1 )
6+ 1 : ) )
)
;
:
1
/ ! %&& % &!&7
-7- ) &:&7 ! & % + ) ? B& % , %
4"# 5
&
$
)67869
3!*
%
! A & %
! 4 % & 7 %% - ! !& & , - ./0 !
&% % ) ? B& %, 4 >5>
'%9+3+ + : 1
1 1B ( ;
6 +
*2%+3+ ) + - *% +
1 ) 1
1
'%9+3+
1(
( :
1 8
=
= C
1
) = D +
/ )
& &! ./0 ( 2 2(1 8 ! / !&& ./0 %& ! 7 4 :
-8-
% 7 % / ! && & %% 7 4 7 &&& / ! # ($ :! ! C 3, 5 # "&
/ && !%
! %
&&7 (+ 2* 2(+ 8& . ,&&& : (23(535 , , %% ! / # ( ! ,
&7 D % ! - E &% !&&7 7
% !% / &% &% &7 & &&
% !! A% %
) & 7 (2 ) / % # ( &, & !&&& & 7 )&% &% &7 % % 4 ( 2(+ & # ( &% &7 / & - % 7 !& )
-9-
&7 : & & ,
) - % : & 7 % )./0 - !
7 2(1 && $4% ! ) %&7 & - % &7 && &7 &:&7 & & % 7 , &:&7 7 & # !&&7 % && 11.
Considering the facts of the instant case and noticing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in "Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another", (2012) 10 SCC 303, "Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh" reported as 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, that the dispute involved in the instant case pertains to offence under Sections 406 & 420 IPC which cannot be perceived as falling within the prohibited category or as an offence that is heinous and grossly shocking to the conscience of the Court or having a wide pervasive impact on the social or public order, the instant petition is allowed and the case FIR No.60 dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406 & 420 IPC registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar (Rural) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as order dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed, qua the petitioners in light of the compromise. However, the same
-10would be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- by the each petitioner to be deposited with the "Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund" within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. &&! +" % *-
) .!
!! C F : G
DG# F 0 &
DG#