Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nishandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 April, 2014
CRM-M-14417-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14417-2014
Date of decision: 29.4.2014
Nishandeep Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. RS Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 164 dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 366-A/ 120-B/363 IPC at Police Station-A Division, District Amritsar City and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The main contention of learned petitioner's counsel is that the co-accused who faced trial have since been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
3. In the judgment of the trial Court dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) it has been observed that the prosecutrix was recovered along with the petitioner at Durgiana Temple, Amritsar. They earlier stayed at a Gurdwara for 15 days and thereafter the petitioner brought her to Amritsar where they stayed at Durgiana Temple. The trial Court Kataria Rishu 2014.05.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14417-2014 -2- further observed in the judgment that prosecutrix made a consistent version only against the petitioner and further that she seems to have willingly and consciously eloped with the petitioner with whom she had love affair. According to the story set up by the prosecution, the petitioner was below 16 years old. Her date of birth is 14.4.1996 and the FIR is dated 15.7.2011.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the co-accused have been acquitted, the petitioner may be granted interim protection for appearance before the trial Court as he is ready to face trial and relied upon judgments passed by this Court in (i) CRM-M-66545- 2005 (Paramjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab) dated 24.5.2006; (ii) CRM-M-3150-2007 (Onkar Lal Vs. State of Punjab) dated 18.1.2007;
(iii) CRM-M-38259-2010 (Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) dated 24.12.2010 and (iv) CRM-M-1129-2013 (Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab) dated 17.1.2013.
5. In the facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner who is a proclaimed offender in an FIR for serious offences does not deserve any such concession.
6. There is thus no merit in the instant petition. Dismissed.
April 29, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
Kataria Rishu
2014.05.01 11:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document