Ranjit Singh @ Motta Vs. Harmel Kaur

Ranjit Singh @ Motta vs Harmel Kaur

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 31, 2001

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/637728

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/637728
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: V.M. Jain, J.
Decided On: Aug 31, 2001
Case Number: Criminal Misc. No. 36948-M of 2000
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- HARYANA URBAN(CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION)ACT,1973[Har.Act No.11/1973] -- Section 4(2)(b): [M.M. Kumar, Hemant Gupta, Ajay & Kumar Mittal, JJ] Determination of fair rent Held, The fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the dat...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 200, 203, 204, 209, 230 and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjit Singh @ Motta

Advocate Sanjiv Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

Harmel Kaur

Advocate G.S. Gill, Deputy Adv. General

Legal References

Acts: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 200, 203, 204, 209, 230 and 482
Cases Referred: Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P.
Reported In: 2002CriLJ449

Excerpt

- haryana urban(control of rent and eviction)act,1973[har.act no.11/1973] -- section 4(2)(b): [m.m. kumar, hemant gupta, ajay & kumar mittal, jj] determination of fair rent held, the fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the date of application. in the absence of rent agreed between parties the basic rent is required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. if on the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the act for determination of fair rent, the agreed rent was still in vogue thus, it has to be regarded as the basic rent and the same would be constituted as the basis for determining fair rent. thus, where rs.500/- was paid as rent by tenant to the landlord, the same would be regarded as agreed rate of rent and the agreed rate of rent has to be regarded as basic rent within the meaning of section 4(2)(b) of the act in the process of fixing fair rent irrespective of the fact whether the lease period stipulated in a lease deed has expired......sessions judge (special judge) for trial. it was submitted that in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court, in gangula ashok's case (supra), the complaint could not be filed directly in the court of additional sessions judge (special judge). the learned additional judge (special judge), after hearing both the sides and after going through the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court, in gangula ashok's case (supra), vide order dated 18.8.2000, directed that the complaint in question be put up before the cjm, patiala for further directions is accordance with law. it was further directed that the complainant and the accused would appear in the said court on the dated fixed. aggrieved against this order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the additional sessions judge (special judge), the accused have filedthe present petition under section 482 cr.p.c., seeking the quashment of the said order, on the ground that no direction could be given by the special judge that the case be put up before the cjm, patiala for further proceedings. 3. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that instead of sending the case to the cjm, patiala for further proceedings, the learned additional sessions judge (special judge) should have returned the case to the complainant for presentation before the judicial magistrate in accordance with law. however, i find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. if the complainant had presented the complaint before the additional sessions judge, as per the interpretation given by this court at the relevant time and if later on, in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court, in gangula ashok's case (supra), it was found that the additional sessions judge (special judge) could not directly accept the complaint, in my opinion, the learned additional sessions judge (special judge) was perfectly.....

Full Judgment

V.M. Jain, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioners, seeking quashment of the order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Patiala, in a case under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called SC/ST Act).

2. Respondent Harmel Kaur had filed a criminal complaint under Section 3(X) of the SC/ST Act, against the present petitioners Ranjit Singh etc. The said complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, acting as Special Judge, under the SC/ST Act. After recording the preliminary evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Patiala had ordered the summoning of the petitioners as accused. The petitioners filed an application for the dismissal of the said complaint. The said application was contested by the other side. The matter was under consideration. At that stage, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners placed reliance on the taw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., 2000(1) RCR (S.C.) 797, in which, it was held that the com plaint has to be filed or challan is to be presented in the Court of the learned Magistrate and the procedure of commitment of the case to the Court of Session is to be followed and thereafter the case would be assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) for trial. It was submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gangula Ashok's case (supra), the complaint could not be filed directly in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge). The learned Additional Judge (Special Judge), after hearing both the sides and after going through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gangula Ashok's case (supra), vide Order dated 18.8.2000, directed that the complaint in question be put up before the CJM, Patiala for further directions is accordance with law. It was further directed that the complainant and the accused would appear in the said Court on the dated fixed. Aggrieved against this order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), the accused have filedthe present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking the quashment of the said order, on the ground that no direction could be given by the Special Judge that the case be put up before the CJM, Patiala for further proceedings.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that instead of sending the case to the CJM, Patiala for further proceedings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) should have returned the case to the complainant for presentation before the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. If the complainant had presented the complaint before the Additional Sessions Judge, as per the interpretation given by this Court at the relevant time and if later on, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gangula Ashok's case (supra), it was found that the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) could not directly accept the complaint, in my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) was perfectly justified in directing that the file be put up before the CJM, Patiala, for further proceedings in accordance with law.

5. It was then submitted before me by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the case was to be sent to CJM Patiala, for further proceedings, the accused-petitioners could not be directed to appear before the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that in fact the entire proceedings of recording preliminary evidence and summoning of the petitioners as accused by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) would be contrary to law, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gangula Ashok's case (supra) and that being so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) could not direct the accused-petitioners to appear before the CJM, inasmuch as, the Chief Judicial Magistrate will have to proceed with the case de novo.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find considerable force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not disputed before me that in this case, complaint was filed directly in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) under the aforesaid Act. It is also not disputed before me that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) recorded the preliminary evidence and thereafter, had ordered the summbning of the petitioners as accused. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gangula Ashok's case (supra), learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint directly and to proceed with the same. The challan or the complaint had to be presented before the learned Magistrate who would proceed with the same in accordance with law.

7. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the entire proceedings initiated before the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) about recording of preliminary evidence and summoning of the petitioners as accused, would be without jurisdiction. That being so, the accused-petitioners could not be directed to appear before the learned CJM, Patiala, for further proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Magistrate, after receipt of the complaint, would be competent to record the preliminary evidence and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 18.8.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Patiala, directing the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate on the date fixed, is set aside and it is directed that the case would now go to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall proceed with the case further in accordance with law.

9. Complainant/respondent No. 1, through her counsel, is directed to appear before the CJM, Patiala, on 4.10.2001, for further proceedings in accordance with law.

10. Petiton allowed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2001 Same Parties Ranjit Singh @ Motta vs Harmel Kaur Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V.M. Jain, J. Acts & Sections Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrociti...

Criminal