Delhi High Court
Ambesh Nand Kunwar Alias Ratan vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 14 September, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14th September, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.2868/2015
AMBESH NAND KUNWAR ALIAS RATAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Lokesh Kumar Mishra,
Adv with petitioner in
person.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State with SI Pramod Kumar,
PS Bhajanpura, Delhi in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of criminal
proceedings arising out of the FIR No.200/2013 registered at Police
Station Bhajanpura, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 363/
366/34 of the IPC against him.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the
aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of father of the prosecutrix,
who alleged that on 16.07.2012, one boy namely Atul @ Suman
kidnapped his daughter Barkha on which case FIR No.224/2012 was
already registered on 17.07.2012 under Section 363 of the IPC at PS
Bhajanpura, Delhi, which is pending investigation; as his daughter met
Anand Vihar Railway Station on 22.07.2012 and after that she resided
with them at the address given in the FIR. On 19.01.2013, at about
02.00PM, his daughter went to use internet at C Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi and she did not return at home. He (complainant) was fully assured
that Atul @ Suman alongwith his friends and brother (petitioner herein)
kidnapped his daughter. Accordingly, present FIR was registered against
the accused persons including the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner and the prosecutrix
recovered and accordingly statement under Section 164 of the Cr P C was
got recorded on 19.05.2014. In the said statement, she has not uttered
even a single word/allegation against the petitioner. The charge sheet
was filed on 24.06.2013. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was also
filed on 13.02.2015 qua other accused persons. He submits that till date
matter has not been heard on charge.
4. Learned counsel submits that there is no role of the petitioner and
he was arrested from his native place. He has completed his graduation in
B.Com with first division. The petitioner is a very bright student having
no role in the offence and his career is at stake.
5. Keeping in view the fact that the supplementary charge sheet
against co-accused was filed only on 13.02.2015 and matter is pending for
arguments on charge, therefore, learned Trial Court is directed to hear the
petitioner and pass the order on charge accordingly.
6. I hereby make it clear that keeping in view the young age and
career of petitioner, learned Trial Court is expected to pronounce the order
on charge positively by the end of December, 2015.
7. In view of above directions, the petition is disposed of.
8. Order dasti.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
M
