Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus PARAMJIT KAUR & ORS.

Decided
25 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1145 · 2009 INSC 404

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted. '-

p. 1145, margin G

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition purported to be a Writ of habeas Corpus. The High Court by the impugned order has directed that the State of Punjab to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the writ petitioners and the family as for alleged custodial disappearance of the writ petitioner's husband. It was observed that the said act was clearly attributable to the remissness and the failure of duty on the part of the police department since the police has not been able to find out the whereabouts of the writ Petitioner's husband. It was noted that in cases where police officials are convicted on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI'), the amount of compensation shall be recovered from them.

pp. 1145–1146, margin G

3

Questioning correctness of the order, learned counsel for the appellant-State and the concerned Police officials i.e. respondents 2 to 4 have submitted that when the matter was pending in a criminal court, the High Court's observations about the officials being responsible for the disappearance for the writ petitioner's husband and the conclusions about the remissness and failure of duty are clearly unsustainable. These observations are bound to have effect on the trial. It is pointed out that before this Court passed the order of stay on 10.11.2006, the State Government had already made payment of the amount as directed by the High Court on 20.5.2006. We agree with learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent police officials that when the matter is pending adjudication in a trial before a crimi~al court, the High Court should not have made any observation which would have effect on the trial by the trial court. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with the direction that even if payment has been made pursuant to the High Court's order by the State Government, that shall not be construed to be a concession to the allegations made. The trial before the criminal court shall be conducted in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court about the remissness and neglect in duty is by the police officials. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. N.J. Appeal disposed of.

p. 1146, margin C