Veena Devi and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Veena Devi and ors. vs State of Haryana and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 20, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/617953

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/617953
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: G.S. Chahal, J.
Decided On: Feb 20, 1991
Case Number: Criminal Misc. No. 3342-M of 1989
Subject: Family;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Family;Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 120B, 406, 420, 504 and 506; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Veena Devi and ors.

Advocate K.S. Sidhu and; P.S. Sullar and; Parduman Yadav, Adv

Respondent

State of Haryana and ors.

Advocate Harbhajan Singh, Sr. Adv. and; Arun Walia, Adv. for the Respondent No. 2

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 120B, 406, 420, 504 and 506; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482
Cases Referred: R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
Reported In: I(1992)DMC224

Excerpt

.....original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further 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 single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. .....having died, her name be struck off from the array of petitioners. vide this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, code of criminal procedure, the petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned fir and the subsequent proceedings.2. brief facts, stated in the complaint annexure p1 are that respondent-2 was married to rishi pal aggarwal about 10 years ago. immediately after the marriage, she and her husband handed over the ornaments weighing about 77 tolas to sunder lal petitioner-6 and his wife gian devi petitioners-3. both of them gave an undertaking that the ornaments would remain in trust with them and would be returned as and when demanded by respondents-2. the ornaments, in fact, were handed over to sunder lal petitioner-6 who made over the same to gian devi petitioners-3. sometime thereafter a cash amount of rs. 70,000/- was also kept in trust with sunder lal and gian devi by respondent-2. respondent-2 and her husband lived jointly in one house with the petitioners till july, 1985, but thereafter differences arose with regard to the partition of the property. on account of the differences, respondent-2 and her husband demanded back the ornaments and cash from sunder lal and gian devi, but they were told that the trust property had been handed over by them to gopi chand, at the instance of sarwan kumar petitioner-4, vishwa mitter petitioner-5, smt. veena devi petitioner-1 and smt. kusum lal petitioner-2. both sunder lal and gian devi, petitioners also promised to return the same. on 2-8-85 same writing was also recorded and signed by sarwan kumar, vishwa mitter, sunder lal, rishi pal and two other relatives with regard to the return of ornaments to the complainant. subsequently, however, these articles were not returned and a flat refusal was made.3. so far sunder lal is concerned, the allegations made in the complaint speak of a criminal act committed by him since it is alleged that the ornaments and cash were entrusted to him and his wife and the.....

Full Judgment

G.S. Chahal, J.

1. Shrimati Manju Aggarwal, respondent-2 filed a complaint to the Magistrate and the same having been forwarded to the Police, case : First Information Report No. 25 dated 3-4-89, for offences under Sections 406/ 120B/420/504/34, Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Chappar. All the present petitioners are close relatives of Rishi Pal Aggarwal, husband of respondent-2. Smt. Gian Devi petitioner-3 having died, her name be struck off from the array of petitioners. Vide this criminal miscellaneous Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings.

2. Brief facts, stated in the complaint Annexure P1 are that respondent-2 was married to Rishi Pal Aggarwal about 10 years ago. Immediately after the marriage, she and her husband handed over the ornaments weighing about 77 Tolas to Sunder Lal petitioner-6 and his wife Gian Devi petitioners-3. Both of them gave an undertaking that the ornaments would remain in trust with them and would be returned as and when demanded by respondents-2. The ornaments, in fact, were handed over to Sunder Lal petitioner-6 who made over the same to Gian Devi petitioners-3. Sometime thereafter a cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- was also kept in trust with Sunder Lal and Gian Devi by respondent-2. Respondent-2 and her husband lived jointly in one house with the petitioners till July, 1985, but thereafter differences arose with regard to the partition of the property. On account of the differences, respondent-2 and her husband demanded back the ornaments and cash from Sunder Lal and Gian Devi, but they were told that the trust property had been handed over by them to Gopi Chand, at the instance of Sarwan Kumar petitioner-4, Vishwa Mitter petitioner-5, Smt. Veena Devi petitioner-1 and Smt. Kusum Lal petitioner-2. Both Sunder Lal and Gian Devi, petitioners also promised to return the same. On 2-8-85 same writing was also recorded and signed by Sarwan Kumar, Vishwa Mitter, Sunder Lal, Rishi Pal and two other relatives with regard to the return of ornaments to the complainant. Subsequently, however, these articles were not returned and a flat refusal was made.

3. So far Sunder Lal is concerned, the allegations made in the complaint speak of a criminal act committed by him since it is alleged that the ornaments and cash were entrusted to him and his wife and the same had not been returned to her. On the basis that Sunder Lal had given the information that he had handed over the ornaments and cash to Gopi Chand petitioner-7 at the instance of Smt. Veena Devi petitioner-1, Smt. Kusum Lata petitioner-2, Sarwan Kumar petitioner-4 and Vishwa Mitter petitioner-5, they cannot be made liable for an offence Under Section 406, IPC. Taking the allegations stated in the complaint at their face value and accepting the same to be true in its entirety, they do not constitute the offence alleged. The same will justify the quashing of the proceedings in view of the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR SC 866.

4. I, thus, conclude that excepting Sunder Lal, no offence is constituted in the complaint against the other petitioners. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against them will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

5. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous of Smt. Veena Devi, Kusum Lata, Sarwan Kumar, Vishwa Mitter and Gopi Chand, petitioners and quash the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon qua them but dismiss the same qua Sunder Lal petitioner-6.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1991 Same Parties Veena Devi and ors. vs State of Haryana and ors. Same Subject Family;Criminal Same Judge G.S. Chahal, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 120B, 406, 420, ...

Family;Criminal