BALJIT KAUR S Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAJMER Singh father of Amarjit Kaur had lodged a first information report at Police Station Khufan Sarwar in which he recited that he had married his daughter Amarjit Kaur with Dilbagh Singh about 23/24 years ago. Two children were born to Amarjit Kaur from the wedlock namely Ravinder Singh and Ravinder Kaur. Dilbagh Singh had brought another lady Baljit Kaur to his house. Baljit Kaur gave birth to two children. When Daljit Kaur started living with Dilbagh Singh frequent quarrels were picked up with Amarjit Kaur. Baljit Kaur and Dilbagh Singh gave threats to Amarjit Kaur and the children and told her to leave the house. Amarjit Kaur and her son Ravinder Singh left the house of Dilbagh Singh and started living with Gajmer Singh. Ravinder Kaur remained in the house of Dilbagh Singh because she was stating that she had the right to the property of Dilbagh Singh. Subsequently, Gajmer Singh with other persons had been visiting the house of Dilbagh Singh but the dispute could not be settled. Gajmer Singh had been visiting the house of Dilbagh Singh but he was not allowed to meet Ravinder Kaur. The first information report mentions that perhaps the petitioner and Dilbagh Singh had done away with Ravinder Kaur.

(2.) THE investigation was taken up. As against the petitioner it had been mentioned that no cognizable offence was drawn and the police found that she was not connected with the crime. The police submitted a report only against Dilbagh Singh for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code besides section 201 of the said Code. After the charge was framed the statement of Amarjit Kaur was recorded in the trial against Dilbagh Singh. The Public Prosecutor had submitted an application for summoning the present petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application and found that prima facie case under Section 498 -A, IPC is drawn against the petitioner. She was accordingly summoned as an accused. The petitioner had filed Criminal Revision No. 452 of 1988 directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge summoning her with respect to the offences punishable under Section 498 -A, IPC. The said revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 4.10.1988. It was held that petitioner has only been summoned to face the trial. All objections that are available to her can be raised at the time of trial. Subsequently, on 31.1.1989 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur held that as against the petitioner prima facie case with respect to offence punishable under Sections 302/34/201 and 498 -A IPC has been made out. Charge was framed accordingly against the petitioner and Dilbagh Singh besides the offence punishable under Section 498 -A, IPC.