Seema Devi vs Union Territory Of Jammu And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1668 j&K

                                                                     Sr. No.7

                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                               AT JAMMU
                                                 CRM(M) No.785/2021
                                                 CrlM No.2242/2021

Seema Devi                                          ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
                   Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                              Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.
           V/s
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir                          ....Respondent(s)

                   Through :-
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

13.12.2021

Heard Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner for some time. To buttress arguments, Mr. Sethi, learned senior

counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in

1998 7 SCC 149 decided on 22.09.1998 title Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab.

Prima facie it appears that a case is made out for indulgence of this

Court.

Be that as it may, issue notice to the respondent for filing response.

Requisite steps to effect service upon the respondent be taken within one week.

List on 02.03.2022.

Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date

of hearing, the proceedings in terms of order impugned dated 17.07.2021 shall

stay qua the petitioner.

Jammu:                                             (Tashi Rabstan)
13.12.2021                                             Judge
Surinder

Before signing this order, I lay my hand to a decision of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court rendered by a Constitution Bench comprising five Judges, in a

batch of Criminal Appeals lead case being Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2003

decided on 18.07.2013 title Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana and

others. In Dharam Pal's case, the cases of Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and

Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar were referred to the effect that as to whether the

decision in Ranjit Singh's case was correct or not and the Constitution Bench

replied by holding that the decision in Kishun Singh's case was a correct

decision whereas the decision in Ranjit Singh's case as replied by the

Constitution Bench, is not a correct decision.

In the given circumstances, it would be appropriate to re-hear this

matter once again on 17.12.2021. Till then the stay of proceedings in terms of

impugned order dated 17.07.2021 qua the petitioner shall defer.

List on 17.12.2021.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu:

13.12.2021 Surinder

SURINDER KUMAR 2021.12.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document