Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

 

  
        

  





!"#"

$ % & & 



        

  
 %  '( )& )
  

            !



  """"  

& *(+

# Petitioner - Harpreet Singh filed this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside impugned order dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned trial Court whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./Section 348 BNSS, 2023 for further cross-examination of victim examined as PW-2 in FIR No.97 dated 19.07.2022, under Sections 354D, 509, 506, 384, 376, 201 of IPC, Sections 12, 4 of POCSO Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Division No.4, District Jalandhar has been wrongly declined.

$ %   &     

   '  &    & &          (## )  )    &&     * +* ,-$  -+*  

.   &      /

   &    * &    
 /

 /    &&   */        /

 &&'        &    /   &   &&    &  & .

 

     -+*   &&   *,-$/  '

0  &    &    (##)  ) / & '&  &) /   '&    

     

(         ! 

 

           & 
*   &  

.      *      

      3. / &    #4 $5$$     *     + /  & *  /#6'    #$  &+*   *

 & !&        &    *

   /  



 & *  $5'     / 

* '     8 
& * ' * '*

+    *

/  &        &

 *  


& * &

 
&  * 9 &&/      
      
& 

 * &    ,   .

 &&'

     & '

     &&'

   &'

    *&  

5.

As per record, statement of prosecutrix was recorded as PW-2 and she was cross-examined in detail on two occasions. Complete statement of prosecutrix is Annexure P-2. Now there is a prayer to recall this witness to confront her with the alleged photographs recovered from the mobile phone. Firstly, the prosecutrix has not denied her friendly relationship with the petitioner. As per the case of prosecutrix, dispute arose when she came to know about the reality of petitioner. She wanted to get rid of him but he was insisting on the relationship. As a result, he allegedly followed her and threatened her personally

 as well as by sending messages on her mobile phone. All the facts were well within the knowledge of petitioner, therefore, in case he wanted to confront her with any photograph, he could have done it earlier. Testimony of prosecutrix (Annexure P-2) indicates that she has been cross-examined in detail on all aspects of the case. Therefore, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. At the same time, the case is fixed for defence evidence and arguments, therefore, present petitioner has the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence as per his choice.

Considering the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 18.04.2025 and the same is accordingly upheld and the petition filed by petitioner is accordingly declined. 6.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.

* 

+



& & &

 



,  

  97 ,  & 97