Nimrat Kaur Mansahia And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34616 of 2021 Date of Decision: 10.11.2021 Nimrat Kaur Mansahia and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CRM-W-38 of 2021 in 2) CRWP no.7546 of 2020 Preetinder Singh Mansahiya
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner in sr. no.2.
Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate, (former counsel for the petitioner in Sr. no.2).
Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner in sr. no.1. Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant in CRM-W-38-2021.
Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) CRM-M-34616 of 2021 On 31.08.2021, the following order had been passed by this court:-
! " #
-2- $
% & ' " #
(
(
($
( $
#
# )
#
' *
$ %
$
#
$
$ + Thereafter, on 10.09.2021, the SSP, Tarn Taran, was directed to file a detailed reply, annexing therewith the call detail records as were obtained from the phone company concerned for the period from 01.08.2020 to 01.01.2021, in respect of the phone numbers concerned. After that, as recorded in the order dated 14.09.2021, an affidavit of the SSP, Tarn Taran had been filed in court, with a direction issued to him that a gazetted officer would determine as to whose mobile numbers they were and as to why the mobile company had simply stated "nil" as regards some of the mobile phones.
Subsequently, an affidavit was filed by the DSP, Sangrur, dated 29.09.2021, with today learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that the necessary call detail records having already been preserved, she does not press this petition any longer.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
CRM-W-38-2021 in CRWP no.7546 of 2020
-3On 13.01.2021, the following order had been passed by this court:- "Case heard by video conference.
By this application, the applicant (who is stated to be respondent no.5 in the accompanying petition, i.e. the wife of the person who is shown to be the petitioner therein), is seeking that the order dated 23.09.2020 whereby the said writ petition was disposed of by this court, be recalled and that proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. be also initiated against the concerned person, who is alleged to have committed perjury as regards the contents of that petition.
Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that firstly, the petitioner in that petition, i.e. Preetinder Singh Mansahiya, is shown to be 37 years old whereas actually as per his passport (copy Annexure A-2 with the application), his date of birth is shown to be November 24, 1969, thereby making him above above 51 years of age.
He further submits that the marriage of the petitioner therein and the present applicant is shown to be have taken place in 2015 whereas as a matter of fact they had got married prior to 2005 with even a child having been born out of that wedlock in the year 2005.
He further submits that the mother of the petitioner, i.e. the mother-in-law of the applicant, died actually in the year 2016 whereas in the petition her year of death is shown to be 2015.
Learned counsel next submits that as per information obtained under the RTI Act, in fact no representation was filed by the petitioner before the SSP, Sangrur or the SHO, Police Station City, Sangrur, (as was averred in the writ petition), and
-4in fact the applicant also has obtained the opinion of a handwriting expert who states that the signatures in the petition are not that of Preetinder Singh Mansahiya.
He further submits that the applicants' husband, Preetinder Singh Mansahiya, went missing on 23.08.2020, in respect of which complaints were also made to the police and further, in fact Preetinder Singh Mansahiya is not a person of fully sound mind in as much as the Government Mental Health Institute at Amritsar has certified that his IQ is 71 which is a "border line IQ" with regard to the intellect of any normal person (copy Annexure A-13).
Upon query of this court as regards the bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. on a judgment/final order passed in criminal proceedings being recalled, Mr. Ahluwalia submits that though the accompanying petition has a nomenclature of a "criminal writ petition", however it was one filed under the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India simply asking for protection from the police and therefore, it having been disposed of with simply a direction to the SSP to go into the matter as per the representation stated to have been made to him, the said bar would not operate, the proceedings therefore not being criminal proceedings.
Notice in the application.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice at the asking of the court on behalf of the respondent State.
Notice be also issued by normal process to counsel for the petitioner in the accompanying petition, i.e. Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate, as also the non-applicant/petitioner himself and respondent no.4, i.e. Manvir Singh Pandher @ Poppy, with such notices to be returnable on 01.02.2021.
-5A copy of the petition be e-mailed to learned State counsel today itself by learned counsel for the applicant. The SSP, Sangrur, is directed to go into the matter and firstly state as to whether or not any representation from the non-applicant/petitioner, Preetinder Singh Mansahiya, was received either in his office or in the office the SHO, Police Station City, Sangrur, prior to CRWP no.7546 of 2020 having been filed in this court on 17.09.2020; and further, as to whether any complaints were found to be made with regard to said person being missing after August, 2020." Thereafter, on 26.02.2021, after reproducing the aforesaid order, the following order had been passed by this court:- ", $($
+ ##)# * (
#
(
- . /
(
$
. ' ' 0 12 (
.
(
(
(
3 " #
4
5 ( *
!6
0$ 3 (
+ ' ( 0
3( 7 #089
1 3 (
-6- (
(( 1#
-
$
: & ! - 1;
(
(
$
( * ' $ (
(
$
$
$ #/:
)
#
$#(
! - 7$
<
=
( ( $
( 9 + On 05.04.2021 it had been noticed that Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate, had appeared for the non-applicant petitioner, with the petitioner also present in court on that date; with Mr. S.S. Gill, learned counsel who had appeared for him at the time when the accompanying petition was filed, also present, with him and Ms. Ritu Punj both having identified the nonapplicant petitioner to be Preetinder Singh Manashiya. On 10.09.2021, the non-applicant petitioner had filed a short reply to the application, which was taken on record. Today, Mr. Ahluwalia and Ms. Punj, both submit that even as
-7per the said reply, Preetinder Singh Manashiya has stated that he did not file CRWP no.7546 of 2020, with Mr. Gill, who had filed that petition, however submitting that in fact he had met the said person outside the court room today. He also submits that as per his information from counsel who had referred Preetinder Singh Manashiya to him, that in fact pursuant to the order passed by this court disposing of that petition, the said person also approached the police authorities and got his statement recorded. Learned counsel has been asked to call the said person inside court, who has subsequently come and has identified himself as Preetinder Singh Manashiya, with all three counsel, i.e. Mr. Ahluwalia, Ms. Punj and Mr. Gill, also identifying him to be the said person. Upon query put to him as to whether he had filed CRWP no.
7546 of 2020, or whether he had approached the learned counsel (Mr. S.S. Gill) to file the petition, he has neither replied in the affirmative or negative and has been in fact evasive in his reply. It can be stated by this court that he is, at least apparently, not able to answer that question logically, with it thereby seeming that he may not be a person a of very high intellect and may be a simpleton. However, it is made absolutely clear that this court has not made any final observation to that effect and has only recorded its first impression after questions put to that person, i.e. Preetinder Singh Manashiya.
Be that as it may, both counsel appearing for him (Mr.
-8Ahluwalia and Ms. Punj) submit that the problem actually stems from the fact that he is a man of much wealth and property and is being possibly manipulated by different persons on account of his property, he being a simpleton.
Since, in these proceedings before this court, it is not possible to determine as to whether he was manipulated or not at the stage that CRWP no.7546 of 2020 was filed, and whether he had actually filed it or a different person had filed it, or whether he had been manipulated at a subsequent stage (or at different stages by different persons), no comment at all is made by this court on the merits of this application, which is consequently dismissed, leaving any affected parties to take their remedies as regards any undue advantage taken of Preetinder Singh Manashiya by any person "on any side", before the competent court/authority concerned. The above order has been passed with it to be specifically noticed that CRWP no.7546 of 2020 had been disposed of by this court on 23.09.
2020, simply with a direction to the SSP, Sangrur, to go into the representation stated to have been filed by Preetinder Singh Manashiya (as contended in that petition), and if any cognizable offence was found to be made out, action as per law would be taken accordingly. Hence, whether or not any such representation was made, is again not being commented by this court.
-9authorities concerned to also have him medically examined from a reputed Govt. hospital in the Department of Psychiatry, before taking any decision on any such representation, to determine as to whether he is of sound mind and able to take any decision independently or not, or is even capable of understanding the true implication of any representation made by him. As regards any property dispute etc., very obviously in these proceedings, or even in CRWP no.7546 of 2020, this court has made absolutely no comment on that, with any party concerned to obviously avail of their civil remedy as per law.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected matter too.
10.11.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes