Daljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab

Daljit Kaur vs State of Punjab

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 13, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/619098

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/619098
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: K.S. Kumaran, J.
Decided On: Jan 13, 2000
Case Number: Crl. Misc. No. 33713-M of 1999
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly con...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 304B, 498A and 506

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daljit Kaur

Advocate G.S. Gill, Adv.

Respondent

State of Punjab

Advocate P.S. Sullar, A.A.G. and; G.S. Dhillon, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 304B, 498A and 506
Cases Referred: Sham Lal v. State of Haryana
Reported In: II(2000)DMC265

Excerpt

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........has not been given by the father or brothers. he also contends that the maternal uncle of the deceased by name surjit singh is an ex-sarpanch of the village and a former chairman of the marketing (market ?) committee, pointing out these aspects, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of all these facts the body of simarjit kaur was not subjected to post-mortem and was cremated on 11.10.1998 itself without any complaint whatsoever, but the sister of the deceased who is a resident of a madhya pradesh, has lodged this complaint on 18.10.1998 falsely implicating the petitioner and others.6. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even as per allegations in the f.i.r. ever since 13.1.1998 simarjit kaur (deceased) has been residing in her parental home and there is no allegation that the petitioner who is her mother-in-law had come to the parental home and harassed her for dowry. according to the petitioner, the deceased was pressing her husband to partition his lands and to have a separate mess and when she did not succeed she had left the home and had died thereafter. he also contends that there is also nothing to show that simarjit kaur died due to unnatural causes. the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in sham lal v. state of haryana, 1997 (3) rcr 85=i (1997) ccr 231 (sc), in support of his contention that when there is no evidence that the deceased was harassed soon before her death, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was harassed and treated with cruelty soon before her death.7. in these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case i am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.8. petition allowed.9. petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of chief judicial magistrate, faridkot.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.S. Kumaran, J.

1. F.I.R. No. 163 dated 18.10.1998 has been registered at Police Station Sadar Malout under Sections 304B/498A/506, 148 and 149, I.P.C. on the statement of Sukhjit Kaur wherein it has been alleged that Simarjit Kaur the sister of the complainant who was married to Jaswinder Singh, the son of the petitionerherein, was being harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and others demanding more dowry.

2. Petitioner-Daljit Kaur who is mother-in-law of deceased had approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, for bail, but her application for bail was dismissed and, therefore, she has approached this Court under Section 439, Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

4. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that even from the time of the marriage Simarjit Kaur was being taunted for bringing less dowry. It is also alleged that a child was born to Simarjit Kaur and at that time, she was taunted on the ground that she had not brought the sufficient gifts. As per F.I.R. in-laws also allegedly demanded a Harvesting Combine at the time when the marriage of another sister of the deceased was performed. It has further been alleged that on 13.1.1998, Simarjit Kaur (deceased) was beaten by her husband and was brought to her parental home, and left by her husband and others. Simarjit Kaur, who remained at her parental home allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself on 11.10.1998.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint on the basis of the which the F.I.R. in question has been registered has not been given by the father or brothers. He also contends that the maternal uncle of the deceased by name Surjit Singh is an Ex-Sarpanch of the village and a former Chairman of the Marketing (Market ?) Committee, pointing out these aspects, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of all these facts the body of Simarjit Kaur was not subjected to post-mortem and was cremated on 11.10.1998 itself without any complaint whatsoever, but the sister of the deceased who is a resident of a Madhya Pradesh, has lodged this complaint on 18.10.1998 falsely implicating the petitioner and others.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even as per allegations in the F.I.R. ever since 13.1.1998 Simarjit Kaur (deceased) has been residing in her parental home and there is no allegation that the petitioner who is her mother-in-law had come to the parental home and harassed her for dowry. According to the petitioner, the deceased was pressing her husband to partition his lands and to have a separate mess and when she did not succeed she had left the home and had died thereafter. He also contends that there is also nothing to show that Simarjit Kaur died due to unnatural causes. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR 85=I (1997) CCR 231 (SC), in support of his contention that when there is no evidence that the deceased was harassed soon before her death, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was harassed and treated with cruelty soon before her death.

7. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Petition allowed.

9. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2000 Same Parties Daljit Kaur vs State of Punjab Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Kumaran, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Indi...

Criminal