Sewa Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ORS

  
  



  

 ! "#

$% &'

%()*)& + , ,



 

    

! "

#

  !

   !  

 + - . ,

/


.

  / 

"# $%!%%%&'(()* +,)  -&

$% ))!).)

/&* '.)0  -

%1 2222

0&1  $$

/)

, !5 1# 3)

) 04+

,- ,/% 4&

*&

56') &/- %77

8%

%8
1 9 :'  
;*  /

 - &  )<< /

 ,((

 - -- ,

' &)0<  '

  ,  18 =
8# - &  3* ) <,  )* &)

* & < )0&)* , ))<)*  &  0)  - ) ,( (


7%81%8
7* 9, 4 :' #;%


>%
%8
*& -<<?/

&)

 )

04& 3'"#


       

  

     

 !! !"#$%&!'#  (( )) 

    (*

" +! ,   &
  &  *

   - (   .

  & ('        ) )   !

" !

 # $%&,' &     " / !0   !  !      ( 12
   3!! ! 

  4      # 5  &( * '

 * .

 $)56 -5Kaur, Dharminder Singh and Jatinder Singh, all appeared before that court and stated that they have effected a compromise with the accused in the matter, i.e. Mohinder Singh @ Sony, JaswinderKaur, GurpreetKaur, SandeepKaur and Hardeep Singh @ Deep and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

Similarly, the statements of the aforesaid five persons are also stated to have been recorded before that court, with the opinion of that court being that the compromise arrived at between the parties is of their free consent and without any undue coercion or influence.

Strangely, the name of the petitioners in these petitions, i.e. SewaKaur and Gurpreet Singh, is not mentioned at all in the report of the JMIC, but with it seen that the statements annexed with that report, are shown to be suffered by respondents no.2(i) to (v), stating that they have affected a compromise with the accused persons, i.e. SewaKaur and Gurpreet Singh.

To similar effect was the statement recorded of the petitioners, i.e. SewaKaur and Gurpreet Singh, as has also been annexed with the report.

Very obviously, the Magistrate has sent a report that is not completely in consonance with the statements sent along with the petition.

Though, otherwise I would see no reason to not quash the FIR on the basis of the statements as have been annexed with the report, yet quashing of an FIR being a serious matter, the Magistrate is directed to clarify immediately as to why there is a discrepancy in her report dated 23.11.2021 with the statements annexed along with that report (such statements shown to have been made on 18.11.2021).

Adjourned to 23.12.2021.

To be shown in the urgent motion list.

$       (    (  

   )4* ) '

< )4 



 
%
%8
&)  0

  , +

-( &  < )

 '

,)< $)/ )    3<)

* )0&)* )/ &  &) & )(

 - ? ),,'

* % %&

  &

 ?

* ?))' ) '

/&*?

) +  <4( 

& 

 )< '0(

04& 9

@%

%8
;*&'/&& ) - ?))') '

/& ?

&?

+ ) :

?&& ) 

% & - *   )

  & '

< )4 

 &)  -), & () &)

,( (

?&& ) ?

)< 9

*04 & ,( <)) ,%;%

&))< ?'<

(0 -(& ) ) :

?&&

)< 

-& < )

$ 3*)0&)* ',& ) 

&)+

()

04 

 %  1* % % &  < /)< &   - 

 %* )  )<  04

%@) 19) ?) ()

- &),'
7%

%8
;%  &)0 / *<5/)& )' --- ,

+<+

*?&& () &)+/ 0

 )(,)0<4

<

 0 ?

 & )

* &

)  )<<?

 )  %77

8%

%8
19, 4 :' 
;* /

-& )<< /

,((

 --- ,

' &)0< '

 , 18=
8#-&  3*)<, )* &)

*  & < )0&)* , ))<)* )</ ?& )<< ,

/ ())/ & -(* 046') &

%  &, 4-& 

0 <),

& -< -& & , ,

,)

%

!

.

  /#

 @%
%8
  & &

)5/ )

"A

 & &

)0< "A