Bhupinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an 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. g.s. chahal, j.1. bhupinder singh and the other petitioners, who are his close relatives, have sought quashing of the first information report no 29 dated 1-5-1990, registered against them at police station lalru, for an offence under sections 498a and 406, indian penal code, oh the basis of a complaint filed by inder singh respondent no. 2 in the court of the judicial magistrate 1st class, rajpura which was forwarded to the police station under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure.2. the facts briefly stated from the complaint, leading to the registration of a case, are that baljit kaur daughter of inder singh, respondent no. 2 was married to bhupinder singh on 11-3-1990 at village jharmari, tehsil rajpura. gurminder singh is the brother; baldev singh is the father; scat. baido is the mother and sukhi is the sister of baldev singh petitioner. smt. amar kaur is the wife of gurminder singh while saun singh is th father of amar kaur. it is alleged that at the time of marriage, the petitioners had raised demand for more articles of dowry. the articles detailed in annexure a were given as dowry. after the marriage, baljit kaur was maltreated by her husband and his other relatives. she was even given inhuman treatment and was also tortured and given beatings many times. in fact, bhupinder singh was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage. proceedings for annulment of marriage under section 12 of the hindu marriage act are already pending. baljit kaur had been deprived of dowry articles which had been entrusted to baldev singh and his relatives at the time of marriage.3. all the petitioners belong to village chhappar tehsil and district yamunanagar in haryana. she had stayed with her in-laws and whatever maltreatment was given to her, it was at norm-laws' house at village chhapar. police station lalru has no jurisdiction to investigate this case and the courts at patiala have no jurisdiction to try this cause. on this ground alone, so far as the offence under section 498a is concerned, it has to be quashed against all the petitioners.4. it appears that on account of strained relations between the husband and wife and the impotency attributed to bhupinder singh, the petitioner has implicated all the near relatives of bhupinder singh. petitioner saun singh is the father of the sister-in-law of bhupinder singh. it is hard to believe that he was chosen as one of the persons to whom the dowry articles were entrusted. smt. amar kaur is the sister-in-law and it will also be hard to accept the entrustment of dowry articles to her. to implicate all the relatives of bhupinder singh amounts to the abuse' of the process of law. the allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to bhupinder singh, husband of baljit kaur, obviously cannot be doubted. i hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous partly and quash the impugned fir against all the petitioners for offence under section 498a, ipc and also quash the said fir against all the petitioners, excepting bhupinder singh under section 406, ipc. with record to offence under section 498a, ipc, it shall be open to the petitioners to seek legal remedy in a court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter.