IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-2237 of 2008
Date of decision:12.01.2009
Neeraj Kumar .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab.
for respondent.
Rajan Gupta, J(Oral)
Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 111,
dated 12.04.2007 registered under Sections 363, 366 of
Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maqsudan, District
Jalandhar. The FIR which was lodged by the father of
Daljeet Kaur alleges that on the intervening night of 10th
and 11th of November, 2007, the complainant along with his
wife Harjinder Kaur and daughter Daljeet Kaur along with
other children was sleeping as usual. At about 5:30 a.m
when the complainant woke up, he saw that his daughter
Daljeet Kaur was missing. The complainant told his wife
that Daljeet kaur was missing. After searching the whole
house complainant could not find his daughter. He reported
the matter to the police, stating that he was quite sure that
Crl.Misc.No.M-2237 of 2008 (2)
Neeraj Kumar, petitioner herein, had taken away the
daughter of the complainant. The complainant also alleged
that his daughter had taken away Rs. 95,000/- and 5 Tolas
of gold.
After completion of investigation the police
presented the challan in the Court of Competent jurisdiction
under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code. After
presentation of the challan, petitioner preferred present
petition before this Court in which further proceedings
before the trial court were stayed on 4.02.2008. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had married
Daljeet Kaur and they were living happily in his matrimonial
home. Even a female child has been born to them on
10.01.2008.
Learned counsel submits that in facts and
circumstances of the case, no offence under Sections 363
and 366 is made out. He has relied upon the judgment,
reported as Manish Singh vs. State Govt. of Nct & Ors,
2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 653 in support of his
contentions.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits
that since challan has already been presented, the trial may
be allowed to continue. However, on instructions from Head
Constable, Kulbir Singh who is present in Court he has
Crl.Misc.No.M-2237 of 2008 (3)
fairly admitted that the complainant Daljeet Kaur is living
with the petitioner at present.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of
the considered view that despite the fact that the Daljeet
Kaur was about 17 ½ years of age at the time of alleged
occurrence, she had accompanied the accused of her own
volition. It cannot be said that she was enticed or
kidnapped by the petitioner. Offence under Sections 363,
366 of Indian Penal Code thus, cannot be said to be made
out.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed.
[RAJAN GUPTA]
JUDGE
12th January, 2009
Skaushik