Sukhwant Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—When this case is taken up for hearing, request is made for an adjournment on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. State counsel, on the other hand, on instructions, points out that investigation in this case has been stayed. No doubt, while admitting this petition on 15.12.2005, further proceedings were stayed and direction was issued for hearing the petition within one year. However, this petition subsequently came up for hearing on 19.9.2006, when the office submitted a report that respondent No.2 has not been served as no person by such name resides in the village. None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that day. The case was adjourned to 26.9.2006 with a direction that counsel for the petitioner be informed about the adjourned date. Again, the case was adjourned to 6.11.2006. Ultimately, none appeared for the petitioner on 11.5.2007 and the case was then adjourned sine-die and the interim order, staying the proceedings, was vacated.

This order was passed in the presence of State counsel. It was expected from the State counsel to bring this fact to the notice of the investigating agency. Otherwise also, the investigating agency should have properly pursued this petition and, if need be, should have sought further direction. Despite order vacating the stay, no further action is taken for the last about 5 years. Even an application filed for recalling of the order was declined on 9.7.2007. This application was adjourned to enable the counsel for the petitioner to show if an order passed in criminal miscellaneous can be recalled. Still, nothing has been done in this case. It would be for the State to consider whether there is a case made out for taking an action against the Investigating Officer for not taking a proper action in the case despite the vacation of stay, which was earlier granted. Because of this attitude of the investigating agency, the case for investigation has remained pending for so many years.

Counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission except for seeking an adjournment. This prayer is declined.

In the petition, it is pleaded that the petitioner is a lady of 66 years of age and is allegedly involved in this case falsely. It is alleged that no offence is made out against the petitioner and the allegations made are vague. The petitioner had executed an agreement to sell with the complainant on 27.6.1996. The complainant never came to execute the said sale deed. The entire amount was paid by the complainant to her late husband. Whether any offence u/s 420 IPC is made out or not can only be ascertained after investigation. There is no case made out for quashing the FIR.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.