Kuljit Kaur, NRI sister of former cricketer-turned-actor Yograj Singh, approached the Supreme Court on Friday challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order of October 31 adjourning her petition, for four months, wherein she had accused Panchkula police of harassment by not registering an FIR on her complaint of molestation charge against retired DSP and his two advocate sons.
The SC on Friday not only put stay on further proceedings before the HC division bench but also issued show cause notice as to why the case should not be transferred to some other HC. The SC bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman issued notices to Saurav Khurana, High Court Bar Association (HCBA) secretary, and other respondents in the case. The division bench comprising Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Deepak Sibal on October 31, while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Khurana had ordered, “Notice of motion for February 12, 2015 (To Kuljit Kaur and others). In the meanwhile, learned Single Judge (Justice K Kannan) is requested to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in this appeal.”
Kuljit Kaur’s senior counsel Puneet Bali told the SC on Friday that though Khurana in his LPA had challenged single judge’s order to the extent of containing derogatory remarks against him but surprisingly the division bench had ordered the single judge to adjourn the case for any date after February 12, 2015. It was informed that in compliance of the division bench order the single judge had later posted the case for hearing to February 27. The Supreme Court was informed that petitioner Kuljit Kaur’s allegations were so much serious that Panchkula police was duty bound to register an FIR in the case on receiving information disclosing cognizable offence and to probe the case.
While hearing Kuljit Kaur’s petition on October 14 Justice K Kannan had observed for Khurana’s behave in the court, “There was again a vitiated atmosphere that was created, which was ill-becoming of a person, who purported to represent the Bar as an office bearer. No meaningful progress of the case could be made, for, the whole attention got deflected from the merits of the case to how the lawyer must behave in court and how vitiated the atmosphere could become by his uncivil conduct.” Khurana had later filed LPA before the division bench.