← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4053/2021allowed

Narinder Pal Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2021-09-23Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:23.09.2021

1. CRM-M No.4053 of 2021(O&M) Narinder Pal Kaur ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab .....Respondent

2. CRM-M No.7465 of 2021(O&M) Pardeep Singh ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab .....Respondent

3. CRM-M No.7716 of 2021(O&M) Harmail Singh ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab .....Respondent

4. CRM-M No.9018 of 2021(O&M) Parwinder Singh Mangat ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. C.L. Pawar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) The cases have been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Vide this common order, CRM-M No.4053 of 2021 titled Narinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.7465 of 2021 titled Pardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.7716 of 2021 titled Harmail Singh Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M No.9018 of 2021 titled Parwinder Singh Mangat Vs. State of Punjab are being disposed of. Since all the petitions have arisen from one FIR, therefore, common facts are being noticed. In all the four petitions, prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.0213 dated 22.12.2020 registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana. FIR was registered at the instance of Harjeet Kaur wife of Parminder Singh with the allegations that in the year 1999, she was married to Parminder Singh by way of love marriage.

Due to her love marriage, in-laws family did not give any share to them in the property. The husband of the complainant took the house on rent from Harmail Singh about 12 years ago, in which they were living. Harmail Singh started living with his son Parwinder Singh @ Happy at Doraha.

living in the village. An agreement was entered into with Pappu in respect of the house in question in the year 2018 and an amount of Rs.5 lacs was given to him by the husband of the complainant. Remaining amount was to be paid to Pappu. After payment of the amount, Pappu got opened store room of the house for the complainant and her husband. Pappu died thereafter. After the demise of Pappu, Harmail Singh and Parwinder Singh @ Happy started harassing the complainant and her husband to vacate the house. Neither they returned the money, nor executed the sale deed in respect of agreement executed with Pappu. On 20.12.2020, son of the complainant was alone in the house, then Harmail Singh, Parwinder Singh @ Happy, Narinder Pal Kaur wife of Harmail Singh and Pardeep Singh came to the house and started throwing goods of the house outside.

The complainant and her husband tried to pacify them, but they insisted that the house be vacated. There were exchanges of hot words. The husband of the complainant gave an amount of Rs.8000/- to the accused party as rent and told them, he would commit suicide if they insult and harass anymore. The assailants did not care, rather asked him to die and vacate the house. The complainant further alleged that due to depression, husband of the complainant consumed salfas and died.

Singh @ Happy, Narinder Pal Kaur and Pardeep Singh. All the aforesaid accused have filed anticipatory bails. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the four cases submits that dwelling house was given to the husband of the complainant on the asking of Pardeep Singh. Due to love marriage performed by the complainant and her husband, in-laws of the complainant did not permit them to live in the parental house and were not given any share in the property. The husband of the complainant had lived in the house for the last many years and was involved in some activities of selling liquor etc., thereby attracting attention of the neghbourhood, who made complaints to the owner of the house i.e. Harmail Singh.

While issuing notice of motion in all the four petitions, interim anticipatory bail was granted and the petitioners were directed to join investigation except in CRM-M No.5053 of 2021, in which interim anticipatory bail was granted on 11.02.2021.. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Mahender Singh submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation on different dates and they are not required for any further investigation in the case.

In view of statement made by learned State counsel, the interim orders in all the four petitions are made absolute. Petitioners shall keep on joining the investigation as and when

required to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

All the petitions stand disposed of.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) 23.09.2021 JUDGE Prince Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No