BAKSHISH SINGH Vs. BHAJAN SINGH AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-338
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 02,2015

BAKSHISH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Bhajan Singh And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SARABJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
DAYANAND SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. SURJI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
HARDEV SINGH VS. SATNAM KAUR [REFERRED TO]
HARDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition has been filed by the complainant of FIR No. 242 dated 05.09.2013, against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dated 20.08.2014, dismissing the application of the prosecution, moved under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., for summoning Bhajan Singh, Joginder Singh and Gurpreet Kaur (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) as accused, to face trial in the aforesaid FIR which was registered in respect of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 120 -B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
(2.)AS per the application, the aforesaid three persons had been named as accused in the FIR registered at the instance of the present petitioner (complainant), naming therein Pargat Singh (husband of the complainants' deceased daughter), Harpal Singh son of Bhajan Singh (father -in -law of the complainants' deceased daughter), Chhinder Kaur/Shinder Kaur (mother -in -law of the complainants' deceased daughter), as also the afore named three persons.
Whereas the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., implicated Pargat Singh, Harpal Singh and Chhinder Kaur, the other three named above were not implicated by the police. Though Joginder Singh is stated to have remained in judicial custody for three months during investigation, he was still not implicated in the report filed by the investigating agency.

It is necessary to note that Bhajan Singh, in the FIR, is shown to be father of Harpal Singh and thus grand -father -in -law of deceased Daljinder Kaur and has been referred to as such in the FIR, by the petitioner -complainant. However, in the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P -2 with the present petition, Harpal Singh, i.e. father -in -law of the deceased girl, is shown to be the son of Harbhajan Singh and not son of Bhajan Singh in the memo of parties, though in the main body of the application, he is stated to be grand -father -in -law/'Dada Basur Mamsara' of deceased Daljinder Kaur and Harpal Singh again is shown as the son of Bhajan Singh. In his testimony as PW -1, the petitioner again referred to Bhajan Singh as the grand -father -in -law of his daughter but in cross -examination, he stated him to be the maternal uncle of Pargat Singh.

Obviously, there is a discrepancy in the reproduction of his cross -examination, because the maternal uncle ('Mama') of Pargat Singh cannot be his grand father ('Dada'). Hence, the correct relationship seems to be given in the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, in the initial body of the application, Bhajan Singh is shown as the son of Jeet Singh, grand -father -in -law/'Dada Mamsara' of the deceased Daljinder Kaur, thereby either meaning that Harpal Singh and his wife Chhinder Kaur were cousins but married to each other, or that, being a maternal uncle of Chhinder Kaur, Bhajan Singh was living with her family and was treated as the patriarch.

The necessity of determining the relationship of Bhajan Singh to the rest of his family, including deceased Daljinder Kaur, was important in order to determine, firstly, whether he was a resident of the same house as that of the deceased girl, along with her husband, father -in -law and mother -in -law, or was residing at a separate place being the brother of the mother -in -law of the deceased girl.

It is also, therefore, necessary to notice that whether this person, (respondent No. 1), is shown as Bhajan Singh or Harbhajan Singh before this Court or the trial court, or even in the statement which led to the registration of the FIR, he is consistently shown as the son of Jeet Singh, resident of Village Rampur Theri, i.e. the village where respondents No. 4 to 6, i.e. husband and parents -in -law of the deceased girl, are shown to be residents of.

(3.)GURPREET Kaur is stated to be the sister of Pargat Singh, i.e. sister -in -law of the deceased lady (Daljinder Kaur) and Joginder Singh is stated to be the maternal uncle of Chhinder Kaur who is the mother -in -law of the deceased.
All the persons named in the FIR, including, of course, the three persons sought to be arraigned as accused, have been impleaded as respondents in the present petition, with Pargat Singh being respondent No. 4, Harpal Singh being respondent No. 5 and Chhinder Kaur/Shinder Kaur being respondent No. 6.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.