Skip to content


Reeta Vs. Parveen Sharma - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Family;Criminal

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Criminal Misc. No. 6058-M of 1994

Judge

Reported in

II(1995)DMC155

Acts

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 406 and 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Appellant

Reeta

Respondent

Parveen Sharma

Appellant Advocate

 K.G. Chaudhary, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

 Anil Khetarpal, Adv.

Cases Referred

In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Excerpt:


.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........complaint and the order summoning the accused mentioned in the complaint including the petitioners. complaint was filed by smt. parveen sharma under sections 406, 498a read with section 120b, i.p.c. after recording the preliminary evidence, the trial magistrate on being satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons, summoned all the accused under the aforesaid sections. quashing of the complaint as well as the order of summoning the petitioners has been sought on the ground that petitioner no. 1 was hardly 12 years of age at the time of marriage and was not more than 151/2 years at the time of filing of the complaint and also on the ground that in the complaint, there are only vague allegations against the petitioners.2. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, i am of the opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the complaint and the order of summoning the petitioners at this stage. the petitioners, if they are so aggrieved of the order of summoning, can always file an application before the trial magistrate that process against them ought hot to have been issued. the magistrate is always empowered to drop the.....

Judgment:


V.K. Jhanji, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the complaint and the order summoning the accused mentioned in the complaint including the petitioners. Complaint was filed by Smt. Parveen Sharma under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 120B, I.P.C. After recording the preliminary evidence, the Trial Magistrate on being satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons, summoned all the accused under the aforesaid sections. Quashing of the complaint as well as the order of summoning the petitioners has been sought on the ground that petitioner No. 1 was hardly 12 years of age at the time of marriage and was not more than 151/2 years at the time of filing of the complaint and also on the ground that in the complaint, there are only vague allegations against the petitioners.

2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the complaint and the order of summoning the petitioners at this stage. The petitioners, if they are so aggrieved of the order of summoning, can always file an application before the Trial Magistrate that process against them ought hot to have been issued. The Magistrate is always empowered to drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the petitioners could be tried. In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr., 1992 (1) CLR 695, I (1992) 316 (SC) Supreme Court has held that:

'Order of summoning is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled by the Magistrate and the proceedings against the accused can be dropped if the complaint on the face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused.'

3. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Trial Magistrate and in case they can satisfy the Trial Magistrate that no offence is made out against them, the Magistrate may pass appropriate order in this regard.

4. Personal appearance of the petitioners shall not be insisted upon and they shall be allowed to appear through their Counsel provided they give an undertaking in writing that they will appear as and when required by the Court. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //