Amroop Singh v. State Of Punjab
(O&M) & ANR.
! "" #$%&%& % (1) (O&M) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' &&&& " " #( )& ' ' ' ' &&&* #+# , - , - , - , - .
.
.
.
' & ' & ' & ' & &&&& " " #( &&&& " " #( &&&& " " #( &&&& " " #( )& )& )& )& '
'
'
' &&&* #+# &&&* #+# &&&* #+# &&&* #+# $ $ $ $/ 0'&' / 0'&' / 0'&' / 0'&' (# $ (&1 ()"2344 (5 67+2
! (* " " #( "# & (& "#8 (7+2
! (* " " #( "# .
& &1(" 9 :( 8"(77:#;
<& 7& 7& 7& 7& & Petitioner - Harish Chander Sharma (in CRM-M-1088-2019) and petitioners Amroop Singh and Kulwinder Kaur (in CRM-M-127622019) have filed two separate petitions for quashing of FIR No.49 dated 08.09.2014 under Sections 328, 342, 363-A, 370, 376 of IPC (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all
(O&M) & ANR. subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
8 * " " # are taken up together for hearing and decision, being arisen out of the same FIR. The documents annexed with CRM-M-1088-2019 are referred for the disposal of both petitions. 2.
8!
! 8
(7 3:+ #'
8#"4 28" 1# 8* 6"
8 85 ("+"#4"#8 ( ! ( 86 = ( 6 #4 5" 88"5"! #+ 8"6+(#&82"
"15 < : = ( ! 4&"5"! + "#4 85 (3 !+ 1 "
86*"# 88 :&"+ :48 ("&&2"
"1 :+="#4"#>(+ #+ (+ #+:+ 2"" 88 : !9:65"#+(9 :( 58 5 3# 5# 8"1&#?& & ? < : $7 82"
"15# 88 : !9:65"#+(9 :(&5# 8(8 : $ <("#4 8"+ :48 (<
3<: 9:65"#+(9 :( 6+8"1 8 8+"+# 5 # 4 <
38 1&"+ :48 (+"+# ( :(# "666 2#"#4& < : $7 8 "#5# 88 : !9:65"#+(9 :( <("#48(+ :48 (<
3 <: 9:65"#+(9 :((!:+ #+8(&8 + 635" 8 8"(#"48< :(
#+ 5#( ! 88 :58(8"5"!:+ 5 (3&8=5# 8 8 : !9:65"#+(9 :(<: 2# 8#8+"+# 8 #+ 2(8"+ :48 ( 8"1& 8(85 6+ 8 82"
"18 + 6( +=6! 88 :& :* +9:65"#+(9 :( #+8( #1( *'"#48"# 83"+# **"#4 ! 8"+ :48 (&8( ! ( 8=6! 88 :<=6 3"#4 8 1&81 ( (* ( + 8* 6"
&82"
"15 ( 2(+ #+8( 1# 5 ( (++:#+(' " # ?(&&& # & & ?58(8# 1+ 8 *(# * " " #(&#" "
66= 85 (4" (+:#+(' " #> > #+ ' " # > 7 >? 7 >. #+ >.
! 5( +++ 6 ( #& :("#4
(O&M) & ANR. > "#2 "4 " #7
&> + + && > 5 ( (++ #+ !!# :#+(' " #> #+? !( " # !8"6+(#!( 1'@:
6!!# ,' -5( +++& 3.
Learned counsel representing petitioner Harish Chander Sharma in CRM-M-1088-2019 and petitioners Amroop Singh and Kulwinder Kaur in CRM-M-12762-2019 collectively argued both petitions. Regarding Harish Chander Sharma it is pointed out that initially petitioner Harish Chander was not named in the FIR No.49 dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner was subsequently named when the statement of alleged victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 16.09.2014 (Annexure P-4). Allegations are false. Therefore, Kulwinder Kaur one of the accused (petitioner No.2 in CRM-M-12762-2019) had filed application to DIG Jalandhar for conducting fair investigation. Thereafter, cancellation report in the aforesaid FIR was recommended qua Kulwinder Kaur and Amroop Singh. Said cancellation report recommended by S.P.
, Sub Division Phagwara addressed to SSP Kapurthala dated 03.01.2017 is Annexure P-2. There is another enquiry report dated 31.10.2017 of Chief Officer, P.S. Satnampura Phagwara is Annexure P-3. However, when it was presented before SSP, Kapurthala, he recommended that this case should be left on the decision of Court. Learned counsel for petitioners have also placed on record affidavit of complainant dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) and affidavit of victim 'K' dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-7) given in favour of accused persons named in the FIR. Without considering the aforesaid factual position, challan has been presented which is Annexure P-10.
(O&M) & ANR. ? falsely implicated in this case due to political reasons. Harish Chander Sharma petitioner contested election for counsellor of MC, Phagwara and due to enmity of opponents he was falsely involved in this case. During initial inquiry, cancellation report was rightly recommended. It is submitted that FIR No.49 dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) registered against petitioner Harish Chander Sharma in CRM-M-1088-2019 and petitioners Amroop Singh and Kulwinder Kaur in CRM-M-12762-2019 along with all subsequent proceedings may be quashed by accepting both petitions. 4.
Petitions are opposed by learned counsel representing State. Notice was also served upon private respondents through concerned SHO but it was reported that earlier complainant along with his family was residing as a tenant of Surinder Kaur. After the occurrence, they left the accommodation in 2016 and the landlady was not aware of present address of private complainant. However, learned counsel representing State of Punjab pointed out that in the case in hand, there are specific allegations against petitioners referred above. Specific role is attributed to them. Victim involved in this case was a young girl of 12 years of age who was allegedly kidnapped on 04.09.2014 and thereafter she was recovered from Darbhanga (Bihar) and she was brought back to Phagwara on 13.09.2014 by her family and thereafter her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate on 16.09.2014 (Annexure P-5). Therefore, considering the gravity of offence, both petitions filed by petitioners/accused deserve dismissal.
5.
I have considered the facts of the case and the documents
(O&M) & ANR. % annexed with the petitions. As per the detailed facts, victim 'K' had gone to the house of Kulwinder Kaur (petitioner in CRM-M-12762-2019) on 04.09.2014 at about 9 am and thereafter she did not return home. Complainant went to the house of Kulwinder Kaur at 2.00 PM to bring back his daughter but Kulwinder Kaur claimed that victim did not want to return home. At about 8 pm, he again went to the house of Kulwinder Kaur who refused to send back and finally he along with neighbours and the persons living in the locality went to the house of Kulwinder Kaur who claimed that victim had already left the house. Thereafter, they locked the house and left. Later-on, victim was recovered and her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded which are Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5.
Victim named the aforesaid petitioners specifically and also narrated the facts in detail how she was kept confined initially at Phagwara and thereafter at Ludhiana. She was boarded on a train along with Kulwinder Kaur and Amroop Singh and she was left alone at Railway Station Darbhanga by giving her some cash amount. From there she went to the house of her maternal grandparents and was brought back to Phagwara. On the basis of statement given by victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., offence under Sections 328, 342, 370, 376 and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act were added later-on.
Now petitioners are relying upon investigation reports Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3. Fact remains that cancellation report was not approved by SSP Kapurthala and finally challan (Annexure P-10) has been presented. During the pendency of petitions, learned counsel for
(O&M) & ANR. petitioner Harish Chander Sharma has placed on record alleged affidavits of complainant as well as victim Annexures P-6 and P-7. However, genuineness and authenticity of aforesaid affidavits cannot be adjudicated at this stage. There are specific serious allegations against all the petitioners against whom challan has already been presented. Allegations detailed in challan and defence raised by petitioners are matter of trial. Therefore, I do not find any exceptional circumstance in favour of petitioners to justify their petitions seeking quashing of FIR No.49 dated 08.09.2014 under Sections 328, 342, 363-A, 370, 376 of IPC (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and the challan presented against them, therefore, both the aforesaid petitions are dismissed being without merits. 6.
My aforesaid observations will have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
.& #+"#41" 66 # : **6"
" #,-7"! #=7 #++"* + !
(+"#46= 566& & Photocopy of the order be placed on the file of abovementioned connected case. , - , - , - , - %&%& % #+ A8 8(* 3"#4B( #+ $
B & A8 8((* ( <6 $
B