High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10793/2016dismissed

Sita Verma v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2016-03-30Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10793 of 2016 Date of decision: 30.03.2016 Sita Verma ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes/No

2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes/No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.2 dated 04.01.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code at NRI Police Station, Hoshiarpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as she was away to USA. Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered before the trial Court and has also been released on bail. The only allegation against her is that on the asking of petitioner, her daughter demanded some jewellery items from the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that without having any specific allegation of harassment, the petitioner NEETU RANI 2016.04.02 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Criminal Misc. No. M-10793 of 2016 has falsely been implicated in the case whereas no offence is made out against her.

Admittedly, earlier the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender but subsequently, she filed petition for grant of anticipatory bail before the lower Court and the same was granted to her. The investigation has not been completed so far and other accused are facing trial after framing the charges against them. Earlier the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and because of that reason, she could not be tried along with other accused. It cannot be presumed at this stage that challan is going to be presented against her. Moreover, at present it is the duty of the Investigating Agency to see the allegations.

To interfere at this stage would amount to interference with the investigation.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as premature.

30.03.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE NEETU RANI 2016.04.02 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh