Nancy Uppadhyay Thr Natural Guardian Neeraj Uppadhyay v. Ranjit Singh & ORS

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 28.03.2017 Nancy Uppadhyay through ......Petitioner natural Guardian Neeraj Uppadhyay versus Ranjit Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

*** RITU BAHRI , J.

CRM-9543-2017 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 20 days in filing of the present revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Challenge is to the judgment dated 07.11.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sangrur dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning additional accused qua respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has been dismissed.

A bare perusal of order dated 07.11.2016 shows that as per petitioner, Jass and Jyoti had forced her and threatened her to befriend Rohit

-2but mere act of introduction does not constitute any offence. No date, month or year of said pressure has been mentioned by the petitioner. Further, she admitted that she did not reveal this matter to her mother. She did not mention this fact in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Further her allegation with regard to the incident dated 07.03.2016 was not believed as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she simply stated that Rohit was accompanied by two cousin brothers at the time when he came and knocked the door of the house. Thus, there is a contradiction in the statement of the informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C and her statement in the Court. Further the allegations that Jass, Jyoti, Ratia Singh and Gurdev Kaur pushed her inside the room in which Rohit was also present and then they bolted the door from outside. This fact has not been stated by her in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that Ratia Singh and Gurdev Kaur either bolted the door or called upon Rohit to do something else. There is no reference to presence of Ratia Singh, Gurdev Kaur, Jass and Jyoti in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Further with regard to Sarabjit Kaur it has been alleged that she had pushed her into room but this act does not constitute any crime nor does it link with any crime committed by Rohit. There is no reference to such role being played by Sarabjit Kaur in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C or Section 164 Cr.P.C Further allegation that Ranjit Singh forced her to ring Rohit and

-3Sarabjit Kaur brought her to the house of Rakesh Kumar but these allegations also does not constitute any offence by said persons. There is no reference to such role being played by Sarabjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C or Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Thus the accused have rightly not been summoned as additional accused and the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur has rightly been passed and does not require any interference by this Court.

The revision petition stands dismissed.

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 28.03.2017 G Arora Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No