Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manpreet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:7457) on 6 February, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:7457]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3534/2018
Manpreet Kaur W/o Bhai Dilawar Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/
o Village Bagrian, Teh. Malerkotla, Dist. Sangrur (Punjab)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Gurpreet Singh adopted son of Mohinder Singh, S/o
Gurbux Singh, R/o 7444, Brighton Pl Dublic California
94568 Usa. At Present H.no. 8, Bhupindra Road, Patiala
(Punjab)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3536/2018
Manpreet Kaur W/o Bhai Dilawar Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/
o Village Bagrian, Teh. Malerkotla, Dist. Sangrur (Punjab)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Parampreet Singh adopted son of Manmohan Singh, S/o
Gurbux Singh, R/o 5662 124A St Surrey, Bc, V3X 2S6
Canada, At Present R/o House No. 8, Bhupinder Road,
Patiala (Punjab)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikrma Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Umesh Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
06/02/2025
1. The petitioner happens to be the complainant of the Criminal
Regular Case No.110/2014 pending in the Court of learned Addl.
[2025:RJ-JD:7457] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3534/2018]
Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar. During the judicial
proceeding, he moved an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
praying therein to conduct an inquiry for commission of offence
under Section 193, 195A & 196 of the IPC. The crux of the
application would be that if the Gurpreet Singh was not adopted
son of Mohinder Singh then on what basis he sought the
permission to prosecute and in line of the above, the complainant
wants to establish that the accused Gurpreeet Singh had an intent
to create a false evidence. Arguments were heard on application
and vide order dated 31.08.2018 learned Magistrate adjourned
the matter without passing any order on the premise that for an
another question of law, the petition was pending in the High
Court and an interim order was operational restraining further
proceeding in the matter.
2. At a subsequent stage, the stay order passed by High court
has come to an end.
3. I am of the view that the prayer sought by the petitioner
should be adjudicated at the time of final hearing of Criminal
Regular Case No.110/2014 on merits. Precisely the fact that
whether the accused had an intent to misdirect the Court or to
create a false evidence could only be ascertained after making
meticulous appreciation of the material brought on record before
trial court by both the parties. At the interim stage of a judicial
proceeding, making such task may hamper the course of the trial,
thus the misc. petition is disposed of with the direction to learned
trial court to keep the petition pending for taking cognizance
under the authority of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and for initiation of
proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C till the case reaches to the
[2025:RJ-JD:7457] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3534/2018]
stage of final hearing. At that juncture, along with the merits,
learned Judge shall hear the parties on this application also and
whereafter the issue shall be adjudicated in the final judgment
itself.
4. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
4-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
