IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CRM-M-8578-2020 Reserved on: 02.02.2026 Pronounced on: 09.02.2026 Uploaded on: 09.02.2026 Jaswant Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

2. CRM-M-8682-2020 Ranjit Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present:-. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate and Mr. Madan Sandlhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

This common order shall determine two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., both praying for quashing of order dated 10.12.2019 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which order of learned JMIC, Kapurthala dismissing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioners as additional accused was reversed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits petitioners were the parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with Daljit Singh on 07.09.2011. Both served as Teachers in Government School. After three months of marriage, dispute arose as respondent No.2 started pressurising her husband to live separately from the petitioners. Thereafter respondent No.2 and Daljit Singh shifted to Kapurthala in rented accommodation where they were blessed with a son. Thereafter in September, 2012 they shifted to Sultanpur Lodhi in rented accommodation and had been residing separately from the petitioners. Respondent No.2 left the company of her husband in August/September, 2013 and moved to her parental home. Despite all efforts, she refused to join the company of her husband. Thereafter, Daljit Singh filed an application to DSP Sultanpur Lodhi on 07.08.2014, besides a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent No.2 also moved an application to the police. The applications were clubbed and inquiry conducted. The police found in the inquiry that the husband and wife were not compatible and the allegations of demand of dowry etc. were false.

3. Learned counsel further submits that FIR No.222 dated 04.12.2014, under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala falsely registered against the petitioners and Daljit Singh. During investigation, only Daljit Singh was challaned and the petitioners were found innocent. After framing of charges, statement of respondent No.2 was recorded as PW-1 wherein she levelled false and vague allegations against all family members including the petitioners. On application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. being filed, learned JMIC dismissed the same vide order dated 07.03.2019 correctly appreciating the evidence. In revision however, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala reversed the order of learned Trial Court without appreciating the inquiry reports and statement recorded before the learned Trial Court. It is urged that impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was not sustainable being against the spirit of the judgment in ‘Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.’, 2014(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 623 and ‘Bijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan’, 2017(3) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 374

4. It is been further argued that allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against the petitioners were vague, general and omnibus in nature and no order summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C., could have been passed. Learned counsel further submits that order dated 10.12.2019 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, deserved to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the petitioners were never given opportunity of hearing and the said order was passed in violation of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others’ 2012(4) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 689.

5. Learned State co