Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. H.B.S. Arora, counsel. appearing on behalf of the applicants (in the connected matter) and the learned State counsel at some length.

It is not disputed before me that the dispute between the parties has basically arisen due to the sale of the house by the applicants. In fact it is primarily a family dispute, wherein daughterinlaw, son and daughter claimed to have been forcibly dispossessed from the house in question.

On the other hand, the claim of the father and other relations is that it was a genuine transaction and the complaint has been falsely lodged by the petitioners in this petition, but none of the counsel appearing before me has disputed the fact that the entire sale consideration has been paid and the same has been shared. I do not consider it appropriate to comment on the merits of the case either way at this stage.

The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that Smt. Paramjit Kaur (petitioner) was injured by the persons whom she has named in the complaint made to the police on 12.1.1997, and that the same has not been entertained by the concerned police station and FIR is not being registered in spite of medicolegal report dated 11.1.1997, issued by Civil Hospital, Mohali.

It is the settled principle of law and it is the duty of the concerned police station that whenever a complaint constituting a cognizable offence is brought to the notice to the police, it is obligatory on them to register a case, in accordance with law, and submit a report to the court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, it is directed that the police station Mohali, would entertain the application/complaint of the petitioner/s and would register a case in accordance with law and submit the report to the court of competent jurisdiction under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

On the other hand, the prayer of Mr. H.B.S. Arora, appearing on behalf of the applicants in Criminal Misc. No. 3552M of 1997 is that the entire case is a fabricated one and the attempt is primarily to harass the old father and other relations. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicants namely Harbhajan Singh, Amarjit Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jiwan shall in the event of their arrest upon complaint filed by the petitioners, be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the arresting/Investigating Officer. They would not hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

Another grievance of the petitioners is that the father and other relations are likely to lodge a false report in this family dispute. Consequently the petitioners, namely Paramjit Kaur, Bhalinderjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Arvinder Kaur shall also be entitled to anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest, upon their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety, each to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer, on a complaint lodged by the persons aforestated.

It is made clear that none of the parties/persons, mentioned in this order, would be entitled to the benefit of this order in case they are involved in any serious crime. This petition and connected Crl. Misc. Nos. 3552M, 3553, 1385M 1386M of 1997 are disposed of.