Bathinda, June 14
Giani Kewal Singh, Jathedar, Takht Damdama Sahib, who has been booked in a criminal case along with his son and one other family kin under Sections 304-B and 34 in connection with the death of his daughter-in-law Sharanjit Kaur got a reprieve today when the District and Sessions Judge, Mr B.C. Rajput, stayed the operation of the order of the lower court issuing summons and non-bailable warrants against him and his relatives on the application moved by his son Baljinder Singh.

Mr Rajput, after hearing the arguments of counsel of both the parties, held that at this stage it was to be only seen whether the revision petition was to be admitted or not. He found that there were arguable points in the revision petition and it could not be dismissed in limine. The revision petition was accordingly admitted for hearing.

Mr Rajput further held, “The operation of the impugned order dated 2.6.2001 is stayed till the decision of the revision petition. Consequently, operation order dated 11.6.2001 whereby non-bailable warrants against the accused have been issued, is also stayed and warrants, if issued, be recalled, as unexecuted.”

The revision petition was filed against the order dated 2.6.2001 passed by the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Talwandi Sabo, whereby he disagreed with the report of the police and took cognizance and started proceedings against accused Baljinder Singh, Kewal Singh and Joginder Kaur. Before admitting the revision petition, the record of the lower court was summoned.

Counsel for the accused-petitioner had submitted while putting forward his arguments that the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, committed a grave error in recording the evidence of the complainant and admitting the documentary evidence and thereafter started proceedings against the accused-applicant.

Counsel for accused-petitioner pointed out that the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case even for a prima facie satisfaction. In support of his contention, he had relied upon the authority Sanjay Gandhi Vs Union of India (1979 C.L.R. 14) case.

He had further submitted that the complainant party was heard and the accused should also have been heard before taking cognizance. In support of his contention, he had relied upon the authorities Sudesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab (RCR Criminal 267) and Hardev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan (1986 CRI.L.J. 1515). He had also submitted that the magistrate could only take into consideration the evidence collected by the police and he could rely upon the evidence so produced/tendered by the complainant after receipt of report for cancellation.

He prayed that the revision petition be admitted and the operation of the impugned order may be stayed and warrants issued for the arrest of the accused might be called for.