High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 January, 2009
Crl.Misc.No.M-12844 of 2008                                  [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT              OF PUNJAB         AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH.


                               Criminal Misc. No. M-12844 of 2008

                               Date of Decision: 19 - 1 - 2009



Krishan Kumar                                          .....Petitioner

                               v.

State of Punjab and others                             .....Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                               ***

Present:    Mr.R.K.Hooda, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.


                               ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Ritu daughter of the petitioner is missing from her house since

2006. Ritu and one Sukhdev Ram son of real sister of the petitioner have

left their house after having married against the wishes of their parents.

They had filed Criminal Misc. No.8571-M of 2005 in this Court which was

disposed off on 10.2.2006. It was recorded in the order that Ritu and

Sukhdev Ram being major have solemnized the marriage against the wishes

of parents of Ritu. They were apprehending danger and harassment at the

hands of petitioner.

Grievance of counsel for the petitioner is that marriage between

Ritu and Sukhdev Ram is void as it was within prohibited degree and could
Crl.Misc.No.M-12844 of 2008 [2]

not be recognized. Whether Ritu has been eliminated by the petitioner or

some body else, is a matter which require to be thoroughly investigated.

From the facts of this case, it emerges that the Area Judicial

Magistrate, under Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C. is competent to redress the

grievance of the petitioner.

File of the present case be sent to the Area Judicial Magistrate

(1st Class), Moga who shall form an opinion whether to proceed in the

present case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or 190 (1)(c) Cr.P.C.

Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests

power in the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law when such

complaint has been received and also Section 190(1)(c) to proceed when

any information has been received from any person other than a police

officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed.

Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers

any Magistrate to order investigation as has been envisaged under Section

156 Cr.P.C.

Section 2(g) of Cr.P.C. defines inquiry as under:

“inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial,

conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;”

Furthermore, Section 2(h) defines investigation, which also

reads as under:

“investigation” includes all the proceedings under this

Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police

officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is

authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf.”

After this file is received by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class),
Crl.Misc.No.M-12844 of 2008 [3]

Moga, he shall formulate his own opinion in this case to find out whether

any offence has been committed and inquiry is to be conducted or an

investigation is called for.

The Code of Criminal Procedure vests ample powers in the

Area Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) to redress the grievances of the

petitioner.

With these observations, present petition is disposed off.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
January 19, 2008. JUDGE

RC