Author: Vejayalakshmi Puli.
1. RAMANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF PUNJAB
Case No: CRM-M-49107-2018 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Raj Shekhar Attri
Date: November 2, 2018.
The Constitution of India under Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law. The case being dealt with involves the matter of Intercaste Marriage. Although traditional belief keepers who still have strong faith in the caste system oppose such intercaste relations, the legal system on the contrary strongly supports such relations as it is in the interest of the nation and would help destroy caste barriers. If there is any violence caused against such couples by their family members, criminal proceedings can be initiated against them. This was upheld in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr (2006 (5) SCC 475). The petitioners are a legally wedded major couple who seek the Court’s protection against their relatives who pose as a threat to their married life as they might cause harm to their life and limb at the residence of the parties. A certificate of marriage and age has also been provided as evidence. Taking the matter and facts related into concern, the learned counsel under J. Raj Shekhar Attri has given the order to the State of Punjab to look into the petitioners case and if there exists any harm to life or limb, they be provided with protection accordingly.
This case lays down that criminal force and assault to an Intercaste married couple with consent is an offence punishable by law as they have the freedom to live according to their will.
2. RISHI GARG V. STATE OF PUNJAB
Case No: CRM-M-31357-2018
Bench: Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
Date: November 1, 2018.
The petitioner in this case has pleaded the grant of anticipatory bail under Sections 353, 427, 279 read with 34 IPC. the petition in brief was that the accused Rishi Garg along with another was charged on account of rash driving. He had broken into police barriers and thereafter the car had collided against a tree. While they were being treated at the medical centre, the investigation of the car resulted in discovery of Contraband substance and they were thus charged under Section 22,61 and 85 of the NDPS Act which had been added to the FIR. The petitioner was thereafter required to appear before the Investigation officer and shall be released on interim bail provided he appears as and when called, does not leave the territory of India. On notice from the officer in charge stating that the accused need not appear for any further investigation, The learned counsel under the verdict of J.Sangwan passed the order allowing interim bail subject to conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) CrPC.
3. BUTA KHAN V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Case No: CRM-M-23051-2018
Bench: Justice Rajbir Sehrawat
Date: October 31, 2018.
The petitioner seeks remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to quash the order of FIR filed under Section 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Nathan Police Station, Bhatinda and in relation to this all such consequential proceedings that shall arise thereon. The parties were summoned by court to appear for a trial before the magistrate of first class to verify the genuineness of the Compromise between the parties to settle their dispute as under Section 320 CrPc. The issue debated on was that not every dispute can be settled through a compromise. For instance, offences intentional caused that prove to be a threat to life, offences while exercising official power in administrative/ government services.
Except the above circumstances, any other act done shall be given the freedom to be settled through compromise such as private cases of civil, financial, family disputes etc can be dealt with through compromise. The High court in such a situation may pass A decision quashing the criminal proceedings else it would result in grave injustice to the parties. The same was upheld in the supreme court of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Therefore, The verdict passed by J.Rajbir Sehrawat to quash the present criminal proceeding in the interest of justice was upheld and accordingly the petition stood deemed to be heard.
4. BALWAN SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA
Case No: CRM-M-43994-2018 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
Date: October 30, 2018.
The Petition in hand deals with the grant of Anticipatory bail under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered under Police Station of Dadri. The facts in brief are that the complainant, Piaro Devi has accused the petitioner and his co-accused of the offence of Fraud. The complainant, in possession of 6 marls of land had signed an agreement with the petitioner for the sale of 3 shops worth Rs 58 lakh wherein it was found that he is not the true owner of the shops and in that process not only was she deprived of the money, but also her land had been taken away by a separate agreement entered into with one of the other accused persons.
The learned counsel under J. Sangwan passed the verdict stating the prayer for anticipatory bail shall not be granted as the offence of forgery, cheating and fraud committed are of serious nature and therefore the petition stood dismissed.
About the Author: Vejayalakshmi is 2017-22 Batch student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
Disclaimer: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.
Criminal Law Research & Review 