AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
43 paragraphs · 528 wordsThe instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for quashing of order dated 7.9.2017
passed by the learned trial court in Complaint Case No. 133 dated 2.4.2014
under Sections 323 / 324 / 325 / 354-A / 427 / 504 / 506 IPC titled as Gurmit Kaur
Versus Gurnek Singh and others, whereby the application filed by the
petitioner to go abroad to continue her further study has been declined.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner had applied for admission in Master of Information
Technology in Victoria University, Melbourne Australia and she was
admitted to that course. The course is of two years, out of which she has
already completed one year. It is submitted that, in fact, the petitioner has
already paid her admission fee for the second year and she is ready to
furnish an undertaking and also ready to submit to any terms and condition
that she would return to India as and when she is called.
Dasti notice issued to respondent No.2/complainant has been
received back served, but none appears on her behalf.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also
perused the order dated 7.9.2017 by which the application preferred before
the trial court seeking permission to travel had been declined. The learned
trial court had dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner
herein had failed to place on record any document to show that she is
studying in Australia, while also noting that the petitioner had disobeyed the
earlier order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to
the effect that she had left India without prior permission of the Court.
Even though the petitioner herein had disobeyed the court order
in so far as she had gone abroad without prior permission and had returned
only when non-bailable warrants had been issued to secure her presence in
the Court, this Court is inclined to overlook the said conduct, simply on
account of the fact that the petitioner is a young divorcee and the dispute in
the complaint case is with her mother-in-law. The case is still at pre-charge
stage and she has given power of attorney to her parents to appear in the
Court on her behalf. The entire future of the young petitioner would be at
stake, if she is not permitted to go to abroad to complete her course.
Furthermore, the mother of the petitioner, who is present in Court today,
makes a categoric statement that she herself would be responsible for
ensuring the presence of the petitioner as and when she is required.
For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside. However, the permission to the petitioner to go
abroad would be given to her on her furnishing an undertaking and any
other condition to be imposed by the trial court/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar.
The petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.
A copy of this order be given to the counsel for the petitioner
under the signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court.
