Kartar Singh& Ors v. State

ORDER %

25.1t.2011 This is a criminal revision petition against the order on charge dated 4th October, 2010 whereby the learned ASJ directed framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 49414951496/376IPC read with Section 1208 IPC. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was delay in filing of the FIR inasmuch as the date of incident was stated to be 13th May, 2007 whereas FIR was recorded on 07th June, 2007. He also submitted that there was neither any active role nor any conspiracy in the commission of alleged offence by the petitioners who are entitled to be discharged. Per contra, learned APP took me through the FIR and also the statement of Kalu Ram, father af the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC on 07th June, 2007. The accused Manoj @ Sonu, son of the petitioners Kartar Singh and Bhagwan Devi allegedly lured and kidnapped Jyoti whereupon the FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC at P.S. Sultanpuri. In the said case, Manoj was released on bail. However, the allegations are that thereafter, he repeatedly pressurized her to mary him so as to get favourable order in the ,F Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. f I aforesaid case. He managed to lure her by making false representation that he was unmarried. After the marriage on 13.5.2007, he took her to his house where his father Kartar Singh told her that he had arranged a room at Aman Vihar for her and Manoj. Therafter, Manoj and his parents and friend Vikramjit who are the other petitioners in this case took her to Al-125, Aman Vihar. They left her there. During all this period, Manoj had physical relations with her and thereafter, they left her at parental house on the pretext that her father is not well. Later on, Manoj told her that he was already married and that he rnarried her only to save himself from the case which was pending against him. Jyoti was medically examined. Manoj who was arrested on 07'h June, 2007 refused to be medically examined. There was specific allegation that the petitioner Kartar Singh, father of petitioner No. 4 Manoj arranged a room for them in Aman Vihar and subsequently, all the petitioners took her to Aman Vihar and left her there. Undisputedly, when Manoj married Jyoti, he brought her to his house where his parents were also residing. From the entire factual matrix, it cannot be said that there was involvement or active role of the petitioners in playing fraud upon Jyoti and thereby getting her marriage solemnized with Manoj during the subsistence of his first marriage. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the leamed ASJ. The case was at the stage of trial and was fixed for prosecution evidence before the court of ASJ. The revision petition as well as accordingly dismissed. NOVEMBER 25,2011 akb miscellaneous application are @M.L. MEHTA.J

-aG^ al $-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV .p. 7 t20t1 & CRL.M .A. 206t20t1 KARTAR SINGH& ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.H.S.Baghel,Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. ' Mr.Rajesh R., Advocate with Mr. Pallav Mongia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA