GURMAIL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The occurrence took place in the year 1993. A case under Sec. 304 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code against Pritam Singh and others was registered. After investigation, the allegations contained in the First Information Report were found incorrect. Consequently, the FIR was cancelled. On the same facts, Natha Singh complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 302/120-B read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code against Pritam Singh and Gurmail Kaur, who have been summoned to face the trial.

(2.) Mr. S.S. Saler, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint has been filed eight months after the cancellation report and 2 and 3 years months from the date of the death Swaran Singh. The Investigating Agency had already found the petitioners innocent. Therefore, the complaint on the same facts and allegations would not lie. It is a false complaint. It has been filed simply to harass the petitioners and other family members, in order to settle the civil litigation. Thus, the petitioners deserved to be released on anticipatory bail.

(3.) In the given case in hand, the complainant has examined two witnesses who have stated about the complicity of the accused- petitioners and on the basis of their evidence on record, they have been summoned to face the trial. Thus, delay in filing the complaint is not sufficient ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Rather, it is the conduct of the police right from the very beginning, who instead of registering the case at the very first instance, only recorded the DDR. The case was registered later on.