JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral) 1. This is a civil revision petition that has been filed seeking to challenge the order dtd. 4/6/2016, by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has allowed the application of the complainant- Rajbir Kaur to record her evidence through video conferencing.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Rajbir Kaur (a resident of Australia) solemnized marriage with Karamvir Singh, however the marriage did not survive for any length of time, the complainant-Rajbir Kaur initiated a case under the Domestic and Family Violence Act, 1989 and sought a protection order from her husband Karamvir Singh. An FIR was also registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar city bearing FIR No.35 dtd. 9/3/2012 under Ss. 406, 498A of Indian Penal Code alleging that her marriage had been performed in India on 21/3/2009 and at the time of marriage her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their capacity and financial status. Details of the dowry given as well as the marriage expenditure were detailed in the FIR. Details of the harassment meted out to her were also specified in the FIR. Eventually a decree of divorce was obtained between the parties on 12/9/2013. In the proceedings that had been initiated under the aforesaid FIR, the complainant moved an application for having her statement recorded through video conference, which application was dismissed by the JMIC, Jalandhar vide order dtd. 12/12/2014. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 12/12/2014, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has filed the instant petition challenging the order dtd. 4/6/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the allegations as set out in the FIR are totally incorrect and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. It is further contended that from the very beginning the attitude of the complainant was stubborn and non-cooperative and only to harass the petitioner and his family members that the present FIR is being proceeded under. It is argued that charges have been framed but the complainant is not coming forth to have her statement recorded. It is further argued that no cogent reasons have been made as to why the complainant cannot travel to India. It is also argued that the petitioner herein has not created any hindrance in her travel as put forth in the application seeking evidence to be recorded through video conference.