State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Shambhu Kumar
2015 Latest Caselaw 8936 Del

$-27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  DECIDED ON : 1st DECEMBER, 2015

+                        CRL.REV.P. 228/2014

      STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                              ..... Petitioner
                         Through :    Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI
                                      Umed Singh.

                         Versus


      SHAMBHU KUMAR                                     ..... Respondent
                         Through :    Ms.Dolly Sharma, Advocate with
                                      respondent in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Mr.Anvesh Madhukar, Advocate appointed by the Delhi

High Court Legal Services Committee as amicus curiae seeks discharge as

respondent has engaged Ms.Dolly Sharma, Advocate. In view of this,

Mr.Anvesh Madhukar, Advocate is discharged.

2. Present revision petition has been preferred by State to

challenge the legality and correctness of order dated 13.01.2014 by which

the respondent was discharged. Revision petition is contested by the

respondent.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the file. On perusal of the file, it reveals that on the complaint of

prosecutrix's father a case under Sections 363/366 IPC vide FIR No.

167/2013 at PS Mianwali Nagar was registered. However, in her

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix 'X'

(assumed name) categorically stated that she had accompanied the

respondent on her own to his village. She did not assign any role to the

respondent in enticing her. She completely exonerated the respondent and

categorically submitted that she had forced the respondent to take her on

the threat to commit suicide.

4. It appears that it was a case of elopement with consent.

However, no overt act has been attributed to the respondent in 'taking' or

'enticing' the prosecutrix. Since the prosecutrix herself did not support the

prosecution, no useful purpose was going to be served to put the

respondent on trial.

5. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The

revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

6. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the

copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE DECEMBER 01, 2015 / tr