Gurpreet Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Jaswant Singh, J.—Applicant-Rajwant Kaur has filed the aforesaid Crl. M. bearing No. 4545/2011 for being impleaded as a party and another application bearing Crl. M. No. 4544/2011 for recalling the order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Crl. M. No. M.37762 of 2010.

It is stated that Petitioners Gurpreet Kaur and Baljinder Singh had filed the above said Crl. M. No. M.37762/2010 u/s 482 Cr.PC praying for grant of protection to their life and liberty being allegedly threatened at the hands of relatives of Petitioner No. 1 Gurpreet Kaur on account of their love/run-away marriage. This Court vide order dated 22.12.2010 had disposed of the aforesaid Crl. M. No. M 37762/2010 with the direction to the Petitioners to appear before the SSP Sangrur and make a detailed representation expressing their grievance therein. SSP Sangrur was further directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action, if so warranted, in accordance with law.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Petitioners misled the Court in the passing of the order dated 22.12.2010 by concealing the fact that Baljinder Singh already stood married with the applicant-Rajwant Kaur. He submits that Rajwant Kaur has already made a representation dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure P2 with the application) to the SSP Sangrur for initiating action against her husband Baljinder Singh for having solemnised second marriage during the lifetime of his first spouse i.e. applicant-Rajwant Kaur. He further submits that no action on the representation made by the applicant-Rajwant Kaur is being taken by the SSP Sangrur.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant I find no ground either to implead the applicant as a party or to recall the order dated 22.12.2010 as this Court had simpliciter disposed of the Crl. M. No. M.37762/2010 with a direction to SSP Sangrur to look into the grievance of the Petitioners and to take necessary action in accordance with law, if so warranted. As such merits of their claims marital status was left untouched. Hence the present applications are mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above, the applications are dismissed. The applicant, however, is at liberty to seek her remedy against her alleged husband Baljinder Singh and others in the light of mandate of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .