Geeta Rani & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Aug 2011
- Bench
- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Outcome
Disposed of
Both the petitions shall stand disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM-M-17405-2011. Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-18276-2011. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-17405- 2011 titled as `Geeta Rani and others Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-18276-2011 titled as `Sumit Goyal Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “second petition”] wherein the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest CRM-M-17405-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-18276-2011 (O&M) :::::::: [ 2 ] bail in a case registered vide FIR No.40 dated 10.05.2011, under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Mehna, District Moga. In the first petition, the petitioners were granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.06.2011 and in the second petition vide order dated 07.06.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in both the petitions submit that the petitioner(s) have joined the investigation. This fact is admitted by the learned State Counsel on instructions received from ASI Jagtar Singh. Basically it is a dispute with regard to membership of four petitioners in the first petition, whereas the petitioner in the second petition is already a member of the Lala Hans Raj Memorial Educational Society [for short “Society”]. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submit that the complainant Rajan Aggarwal had filed a suit for declaration that the petitioners in the first petition have no concern with the affairs of the society and the Society alone is competent and entitled to manage, run and administer the institutions of the Society. In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] was also filed for seeking ad interim injunction. While deciding that application by a detailed order dated
Operative part
17.07.2010, the Civil Court had observed that “regarding opening of account with the bank, learned counsel admitted that this account was opened”. Similarly, the Civil Court had found that the complainant Rajan Aggarwal was in possession of the minute books/resolutions passed by the society from time to time which were not produced before the Court. It was held that “he has withheld this relevant and material record, due to which an adverse inference is drawn against him”. Finally, it was observed that
prima facie, there is sufficient material on the file to show that defendants are life members of the plaintiff society. The question of validity and legality of their membership, submission of application dated 08.01.2007, passing of resolution in meeting held on 06.11.2003 are the matter of evidence
. The Civil Court had, thus, refused to grant ad interim injunction sought for by the complainant (plaintiff in CRM-M-17405-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-18276-2011 (O&M) :::::::: [ 3 ] the said suit). Learned counsel for the complainant could not explain as to why this order was not challenged by the plaintiff by way of an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Be that as it may, it appears that the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature, therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the orders dated 01.06.2011 and 07.06.2011 passed in both the cases are hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already mentioned therein. Both the petitions shall stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. August 08, 2011 vinod* (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Both the petitions shall stand disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Aug 2011. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.