Judgment Analysis: Pritpal Kaur vs State of Punjab



Party Names: Pritpal Kaur vs State of Punjab

Case Type: Instant Petition in P&H HC to direct police for CBI inv. u/s 376

Judgment Date: 16 March 2021

Judge Name - Harnaresh Singh Gill

Relevant Sections: FIR for 376 complaint

Judgment link: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/07/rape-allegation/




Advocates for respondent: Sh. Randhir Singh Thind (Deputy Advocate General, Punjab), Smt. Shubhra Singh (Additional Adv General, Haryana), Adv. Puru Gupta and Adv. A.S.Brar

Adv for Petitioner: Adv. Rajesh Bhatheja

What makes this case interesting is that HC put fine of 1 lac on petitioner who was putting false allegations on a person. The petitioner had paid 3 lacs in the past due to some dispute with the respondent but when respondent asked for more money, she threatened rape allegations and gave complaint to police. Police worked with surprising alacrity in constituting a SIT who investigated but did not find any evidence and found false information given by girls based on call location etc. The girl was also found to be involved in separate matrimonial litigation and the present complaint appeared to be out of animosity of broken relationships.

HC took strong notice of the gaps in girls' story and investigation report of police and put heavy fine on the girl.

Ratio: “It is clear that the petitioner has levelled false and frivolous allegations against the accused and has gone to the extent of lodging the FIR in question and recording the statement before the Magistrate. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.”

Relieance was placed on Phool Chandra v. State of U.P., (2014) 13 SCC 112, wherein, the Supreme Court expressed its concern over the need to curb frivolous petitions in following words, “It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation.”

"it is clearly established that an attempt had been made to not only abuse the process of law but also overawe the authorities. "

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chargesheet Vs final report / A, B, C Summary report

Maharashtra police rules as defined in  Bombay Police Manual, 1959, Volume III [referred as The Manual below],   defines two types of police reports which can be submitted to the magistrate by police u/s 173(2) of CrPC. It is the report of police investigation filed at the end of investigation.. a. Charge-sheets (Rule 218 of The Manual) and  b. Final Reports (Rule 219 of Police Manual).  Final report is explained under Rule 219 of The Manual. Rule 219 of The Manual: 219. Final Reports .- (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. (2) The Police Station Officer will then submit a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of an offence on a Police report through the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, as the case may be, in the following three class...
Read more

Judgment Analysis : Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan (with translation in Punjabi)

Judgment Name : YASHITA SAHU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS  Citation Code :   (2020) 3 SCC 67 Judgment link :  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28083/28083_2019_15_1501_19699_Judgement_20-Jan-2020.pdf Court : Supreme Court of India Case Type : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  127 OF 2020 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7390 OF 2019) Judge : Hon'ble Justice Sh. Deepak Gupta  (author of judgment) Hon'ble Justice Sh. Aniruddha Bose Summary: This judgment talks about  1) Court treats the child as "human" which is shocking (sarcasm :|) and talks about the human rights of a child to get love and affection from both Parent. It talks about the rights of a parent as well as the rights of a child to get "s ufficient visitation rights" . 2) If any court denies the visitation to a parent, a strong reason should also be assigned and can be justified only unde...
Read more

Ad-interim vs interim orders (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

  Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 are repository of the power to grant injunction.  An order of injunction is always passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 Order 39 save and except rare orders passed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 do not use the words "interim or ad interim". These are the words coined by the lawyers and the courts merely to indicate the stage at which orders are passed.  Interim order usually remains in force for whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or set aside in appeal.  Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction.  Usually, ad interim order is passed ex parte though it can also be passed when otherwise is present.  It is possible that in a given case at the time of institution of a suit, the plaintiff does not make an application for an order of interim injunction as he feels no necessity in which case only summons of the suit is issu...
Read more