High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1700/2015allowed

Jugraj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-01-29Mr. Justice Krishna Murari42 pages

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2015.01.30 10:47 211 CM-5018-CII-2014 in COCP-1354-2013 SUKHDEV SINGH SARPAL VS P.S.AUJLA AND ORS.

None for the petitioner.

Adjourned to 24.4.2015, for arguments.

216 CRM-M-755-2015 HARPREET KAUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.Anil Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Notice of motion for 3.3.2015.

219 CRM-M-2497-2015 PURAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.R.K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

For having been found in possession of 260 gms. of Heroin marginally higher than the commercial quantity prescribed. He has been in custody w.e.f. 2.8.2014 but no witness has been examined.

Notice of motion to the State for 17.3.2015.

220 CRM-M-37306-2014 ROSHAN LAL VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Despite a direction, trial has not been concluded in six months.

Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Haryana, for 11.3.2015.

The trial Court shall furnish the status of the trial on next date of hearing.

222 CRM-M-25299-2014 PRAVEEN VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr., Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Haryana, for 28.9.2014. State counsel, on the instructions of HC Sohan Singh, informs that the petitioner has joined investigation. In view of said circumstance, this petition is allowed. Interim order dated 23.5.2014 is hereby made absolute subject to all the conditions under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, interim order will remain operative subject to petitioners again joining investigation as and when required. Petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that he will join investigation as and when required and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper investigation, in any manner. The petition is allowed.

Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the conditions that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the pendency of the trial. He will also furnish an undertaking before his release to be submitted in the Special Court that in case he is found to commit similar offence again, the bail will be liable to be cancelled.

223 CRM-M-1646-2015 ARJUN GILL VS UT OF CHANDIGARH Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.A.S.Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Proxy counsel for Mr.Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for UT, Chandigarh.

On account of bereavement in the family, Mr.Sukant Gupta, Advocate, is not available.

Proxy counsel prays for adjournment.

With the assistance of the Investigating Officer present in the Court, I have gone through the police file showing that the challan has been prepared and is ready to be presented. For arguments, to come up on 2.2.2015.

224 CRM-965-2015 in CRA-D-1683-DB-2011 KAPTAN SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.J.S.Lalli, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Custody certificate placed on record.

For arguments, adjourned to 2.3.2015.

Be shown in urgent list.

225 CRM-1193-2015 in CRA-S-5280-SB-2014 VIKRAM SINGH AND ANR. VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Notice of the application to the State for 20.4.2015.

226 CRM-3746-2013 in CRM-A-27-MA-2013 M/S RISE CONSORTIUM INDIA PVT LTD VS M/S B M BHARTI & CO & ANR Proxy counsel for Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Adjourned to 17.8.2015, for arguments.

227 CRM-12383-2013 in CRM-A-96-MA-2013 MUKESH TAKKAR VS MANGE RAM Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.N.C.Kinra, Advocate, for the respondent.

Adjourned to 12.8.2015.

228 CRM-16705-2013 in CRM-A-152-MA-2013 MUKESH TAKKAR VS MANGE RAM Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.N.C.Kinra, Advocate, for the respondent.

Adjourned to 12.8.2015.

229 CRM-A-1111-MA-2013 229 CRM-A-1134-MA-2013 229 CRM-A-1135-MA-2013 229 CRM-A-425-MA-2014 GURJIT KAUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Mr.Rajiv K. Kapila, Advocate.

For arguments, adjourned to 17.8.2015.

A copy of the order be placed on the files of connected cases.

230 CRM-12317-2014 in CRA-S-1705-SB-2014 CHAND RAM VS BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.B.R.Vohra, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

For arguments, adjourned to 20.8.2015.

231 CRM-A-377-MA-2014 KASHMIR SINGH VS NISHAN SINGH AND ORS Mr., Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

232 CRM-7949-2014 in CRA-S-236-SB-2012 PREM SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.D.S.Adlakha, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Having suffered sentence of imprisonment for a period for 4 years and 1 month out of 10 years awarded and the appellant being a patient of T.B., it is ordered that sentence of imprisonment of appellant will remain suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar along with an undertaking that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during pendency of the appeal. CRM is disposed of.

233 CRM-16371-2014 in CRA-S-3550-SB-2012 ASHU ARORA VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.Sukhjeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

The appellant having undergone sentence of imprisonment of more than 4 years out of 10 years and no chance of appeal being heard in near future and further the matter being covered by the judgment in Daler Singh V/S State of Punjab,2007

(1) RCR (Crl.) 316, it is ordered that sentence of imprisonment of appellant Ashu Arora will remain suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. CRM is disposed of.

233 CRM-258-2014 in CRA-S-2940-SB-2012 SALINDER NAIR @ SHIVA VS STATE OF PUNJAB Ms.Divya Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

(1) RCR (Crl.) 316, it is ordered that sentence of imprisonment of appellant will remain suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

CRM is disposed of.

234 CRM-22702-2014 in CRA-S-3107-SB-2014 NAIB SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Co-convict of the appellant Nikka Singh having been granted the suspension of sentence of imprisonment, it is ordered that sentence of imprisonment of Naib Singh appellant will remain suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur.

CRM is disposed of.

235 CRM-35289-2014 in CRA-S-4706-SB-2014 SWARAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.Parvesh Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Heard.

Sentence of imprisonment of the appellant will remain suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka.

CRM is disposed of.

236 CRM-36269-2014 in CRA-S-4857-SB-2014 PARAMJIT KAUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.P.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Custody certificate placed on record indicating that only three months' of sentence of imprisonment has been undergone.

Adjourned to 31.3.2015.

237 CRM-1284-2015 in CRA-S-4660-SB-2014 DALIP SINGH & ANR VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.Pritam Singh, Advocate, for the appellant Jaswinder Kaur.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

The husband and wife have been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act. Wife Jaswinder Kaur appellant can be granted the concession of suspension of sentence of imprisonment in order to enable her to look after the two children who are also detained in the Jail there being no one to look after them. It is ordered that sentence of imprisonment of Jaswinder Kaur appellant will remain suspended during pendency of the appeal subject to her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali. Before her release she will furnish an undertaking that in case she commits the similar offence of which she is accused of during pendency of the appeal the concession of suspension of sentence of imprisonment granted to her will be liable to be withdrawn.

CRM is disposed of.

238 CRM-52060-2013 in CRR (F)-196-2013 SATYAWAN VS REKHA AND ANR Mr.Rajiv K. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Fresh notice be issued to respondent No.1 for 27.7.2015.

Dasti also.

239 CRR-1966-2013 RAGHUBIR SINGH VS VIKRAM & ORS Mr.G.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

At the request of counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 12.5.2015.

240 CRR-3027-2013 RAJENDER PARSAD VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR Proxy counsel for Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

At the request of proxy counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 24.8.2015.

241 CRM-39076-2014 -1RANDEEP SINGH VS UT OF CHANDIGARH Mr.J.S.Bedi, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Diya Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

Mr.Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant.

Petitioner has been convicted for having committed an offence under Section 498-A IPC by maltreating Rupinder Kaur who was allegedly married to the petitioner on 20.11.2004 in Hotel Regency in presence of the relations from both the sides. There are allegation of demand of dowry besides a demand of Car with Rs.2 lacs. A sum of Rs.3 lacs was allegedly spent to serve meal at the time of ceremony. The petitioner has been acquitted of offence under Section 406 IPC but convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for having committed offence under Section 498-A IPC. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an engagement ceremony in a Hotel on 20.11.2014 has been treated as a marriage ceremony by describing the ceremony as Chunni Chadai ceremony. There is no ceremony of saptpadi or lavans which are necessary to establish the marriage.

Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to other circumstances to submit that in the absence of marriage having been established, conviction under Section 498-A IPC is not sustainable. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the revision petition contending that the statement of

complainant as PW.1 made in the Court is sufficient enough to establish the relationship of complainant and petitioner as husband and wife. Though the complainant has admitted in her crossexamination that no Anand Karaj ceremony was performed and no photograph was taken at the time of marriage ceremony but she in order to establish the relationship of husband and wife has stated that the marriage was by way of Chunni Charai ceremon as it was the second marriage of both the parties.

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant that the ceremony of holding of Palla, Chunni Charai and performance of Ardas at Hotel is sufficient enough to establish the marriage. He relies upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and others, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 776, wherein it was held that living together of a male and female for a long time would raise a presumption that there was a valid marriage. In said circumstances, the offence under Section 498-A, 494 and 304 B IPC were held to be applicable.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. In view of the photograph indicating the complainant holding a cloth stated to be Palla, the following questions appear to arise for adjudication: - Whether the engagement ceremony dated 20.11.2004 could be said to be a marriage ceremony by giving it the name of Chunni Charai ceremony when no lavans as per the law are established to have been performed?

Whether in the absence of establishment of a

custom of marriage by Chunni Charai of widows, it could be presumed that customarily the celebrations on 20.4.2014 would constitute a marriage ceremony?

Whether in the absence of recitation of relevant part of Guru Granth Sahib and absence of any lavans, the occurrence dated 20.4.2014, could be said to be a marriage? Whether the material produced on the record is sufficient enough to warrant a presumption and finding under Section 50 of the Evidence Act that marriage is established by conduct of the parties especially when no evidence has been produced by the prosecution agency to establish the relationship by conduct? Whether the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Seema Vs. Ashwani Kumar laying down that the registration of marriage would be proved in case of dispute having arisen regarding the existence of relationship by marriage would be applicable in the present case.

Admitted.

It has been informed that the petitioner has undergone sentence of imprisonment of 1 month and 25 days. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, at this stage, in details, prima facie it may be a case where the complainant party has been put to unnecessary harassment and expenses. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, subject to paying a sum of Rs.3 lacs in the shape of bank draft in the name of complainant which be considered as interim compensation under law subject to final

decision of the case. Before releasing the petitioner, the bank draft will be deposited with the the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. It will be open to said Court to release the said bank draft to the complainant subject to final decision of the present revision petition.

242 CRR-1694-2014 (O&M) DALBIR SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB None for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

On written request, adjourned to 18.8.2015.

243 CRR-2535-2014 KIRAT SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA None for the petitioners.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

For arguments, adjourned to 7.5.2015.

244 CRM-M-1115-2009 RAJINDER SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

INTERIMFINAL NOYES

245 CRM-M-37719-2013 PIARA SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS INTERIMFINAL NOYES

246 CRM-M-29967-2014 ARUN RANA VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS INTERIMFINAL NOYES

247 CRM-M-40827-2014 MANJIT SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS INTERIMFINAL NOYES

248 CRWP-1382-2014 SHAMINDERJIT KAUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS None for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Nain, AAG., Punjab.

Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the respondent.

Matter is stated to be pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court. For report, now, to come up on 8.3.2015.

249 CRWP-1920-2014 (O&M) ROBIN SHARMA VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS CRWP-1921-2014 (O&M) SOHAN SINGH BARDWAJ VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Proxy counsel for Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

Mr.R.S.Nain, AAG., Punjab.

Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

At the request of proxy counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 12.3.2015.

A copy of the order be placed on the file of connected case.

250 CRM-M-6885-2013 RAMKISHANA MUDOLKAR AND ANR VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR INTERIMFINAL NOYES

251 CRM-M-8217-2014 GURPREET SINGH VS AMANDEEP KAUR AND ANR Mr.D.R.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate, for Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the respondents. At the request of counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 21.4.2015.

252 CRM-M-14302-2014 MOHINDER KAUR AND ORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB INTERIMFINAL NOYES 253 CRM-M-22345-2014 SUKHWINDER SINGH @ BHANGI VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR INTERIMFINAL NOYES 254 CRM-M-37371-2014 KULVIR SINGH @ KULBIR SINGH & ORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR INTERIMFINAL NOYES 255 CRM-M-39620-2014 GURBACHAN SINGH VS TILAK RAJ INTERIMFINAL NOYES 256 CRA-S-3893-SB-2014 MANOHAR LAL VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS INTERIMFINAL NOYES 257 CRR-3657-2014 M/S RAM DASS & SONS VS M/S KHALSA TRADE INTERIMFINAL NOYES 258 CRR-3968-2014 PARVEEN GILL VS GURDAYAL SINGH INTERIMFINAL NOYES

259 CRM-M-40570-2014 KAILASH NATH SAINI VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS Mr., Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-1700-2015 (O&M).

Decided on: January 29, 2015.

Jugraj Singh ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Mr.Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

The petitioner along with his co-accused was found carrying 80 kgs. of poppy husk contained in three plastic bags. He has been in custody since 19.5.2014. Co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the concession of bail by this Court on 28.1.2015 in CRM-M-41591-2014. On the principle of parity, the petitioner can also be granted the concession of bail.

The petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the condition that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the pendency of the trial.