Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.93 seconds)
State vs . Rahul @ Sonu on 21 August, 2015 cites

State vs Surender @ Sonu Punjabi & Ors. on 17 September, 2014

1. The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 22.07.2013, complainant Sh. Raju son of Sh. Panna Lal went to PS Ashok Vihar and got his statement recorded, wherein he stated that on 22.07.2013, at about 2.30 pm, his S.C. No. 60/15 : FIR no. 213/13 : PS Ashok Vihar : State vs. Rahul @ Sonu : Page No. 1 of 10 2 daughter (hereinafter referred as "prosecutrix P"), aged about 16 years, went missing from the house and he made efforts to trace her, but all in vain. He raised suspicion against accused Rahul @ Sonu s/o Sh. Hemant r/o Village Wazirpur, Delhi, to have enticed and taken away prosecutrix P. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant, the present case FIR was registered and investigation of the case was handed over to SI Ajay Kumar. During the course of investigation, SI Ajay Kumar made efforts to trace the prosecutrix P and the accused, but all in vain. On transfer of SI Ajay Kumar, further investigation was assigned to Ins. Surender Singh and on his transfer, further investigation was assigned to SI Radhey Shyam. On 31.03.2014, parents of the prosecutrix P produced her in the police post and SI Radhey Shyam made inquiries from her. Prosecutrix P refused for her internal gynecological examination. The statement of prosecutrix P was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. As per the school record, the prosecutrix P was minor at the time of marriage, the accused was arrested on 12.03.2015. After completing investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed before this court by the IO, through SHO concerned.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 56 - M Gupta - Full Document

Bunty vs State (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 16 March, 2011

20. It has also been held in para 8 of judgment titled as Bunty vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi in Crl. Appeal no. 846/2009 decided on 16.03.2011 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi as under :­ "8. In this case, the prosecutrix had accompanied the Appellant voluntarily without any use of force exercised by him. It is not a case wherein he had taken the prosecutrix after enticing her. Prosecutrix had travelled with the accused to different places outside Delhi without raising any alarm or complaining to fellow passengers that she had been taken away by force. If a minor accompanies accused voluntarily without any offer or allurement then offence under Section 363 is not made out. ...."
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 83 - A K Pathak - Full Document

S. Varadarajan vs State Of Madras on 9 September, 1964

In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the case titled as " S. S.C. No. 60/15 : FIR no. 213/13 : PS Ashok Vihar : State vs. Rahul @ Sonu : Page No. 8 of 10 9 Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (reported as AIR 1965 SC 942)", wherein while distinguishing between " taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany a person" it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :­ " There is a distinction between " taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though it can not be laid down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of S. 361. Where the minor leaves her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing, voluntarily joins the accused person, the accused cannot be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 778 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1