SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
............ – Appellant
Versus
............ – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 JATINDER KUMAR @ MONU AND OTHERS ......Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 07.10.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial has been allowed.

2. The instant FIR was registered on the statement of the mother of the deceased under Section 306 of IPC. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“Statement of xxxx wife of late Narinder Sharma, resident of Bhagwati Mandir, House No. R-25, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, aged about 54 years, Mobile No. 94163-xxxx, 94169-xxxxx. Stated that I am resident of above said address and I am employed at Telephone Office, GMT Office, Ambala Cantt. In the year 2002, my husband expired due to illness. I was having one daughter namely xxxxx who was matric pass and about 12 years back, my daughter xxxxxx was married to Sanjiv Kumar son of Satish Sharma, resident of Old City, Near Girls School, Kotkapura. My daughter is having two sons, elder is Himanshu and younger is Tanish. On dated 25.1.2016, my son-in-law Sanjiv Kumar died due to swine flu. After that, my daughter was residing in her house which is having two portions and she was residing in lower portion along with her both sons and in the upper portion of the house, father in law of my daughter namely Satish Kumar Sharma and brother in law of my daughter namely Jatinder Kumar alias Monu and his wife Monika alias Mona are residing and after the death of my son in law Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, my daughter's brother in law Jatinder Kumar alias Monu and my daughter's sister in law Monika alias Mona and brother of my daughter's sister in law Saron alias Sonu Sharma, resident of Jalalabad West used to harass my daughter Neelam Sharma and were demanding lower portion of the house and used to say that neither you are having any brother nor you are having any sister and you leave this house for us otherwise, we will throw you out of the house and will also not give any share etc. to you. My daughter was tensed due to non giving of share to her and whenever I used to go to meet my daughter at Kotkapura, these all persons used to quarrel with my daughter in front of me and used to say to my daughter that it is better that you die and my daughter used to say at our home at Ambala Cantt that my brother in law Jatinder Kumar Sharma and my sister in law Monika Sharma alias Mona and brother of my sister in law Saron alias Sonu Sharma, resident of Jalalabad used to harass me and are compelling me to die and today at about 1.30 PM, I was present at my house at Ambala City and my daughter's brother in law Jatinder Kumar told me that Himanshu's mother has committed suicide by hanging with ceiling fan. After hearing the phone, I along with relative Chetan Sharma son of Pawan Kumar, resident of Bhadson, District Patiala and my brother Hem Raj son of Kanshi Ram, resident of Ambala Cantt was coming to meet you and you met us at Light Chowk, Kotkapura and I have got my statement recorded to you which I have heard and is correct. Legal action be taken against them. Sd/- xxxx above said. Attested Statement Sd/- Chetan Sharma, Attested Baldev Singh, ASI PS City, Kotkapura dated 17.4.2016.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the learned trial Court is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts and is against the settled principles of law for summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top