C482/292/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 3370 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  C482 No.292 of 2018
                                  Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. DCS Rawat, learned counsel for the applicants.

Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned B.H. for the State.

Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

Heard.

The present C482 application is filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.38 of 2018, State v. Pramod Singh and others, pending before the J.M., Lansdowne.

Brief facts are that on 11.7.2017, informant- respondent no.3, namely, Umeshwar Singh, submitted an information with Revenue Sub-Inspector, Circle Badalpur-6, Lansdowne. On the basis of said information, FIR No.2 of 2017 was registered. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, whereupon, on 16.02.2018, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lansdowne took the cognizance. Feeling aggrieved, the present C482 application has been filed by the applicants seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the trial qua present applicants was stayed by this Court, whereas, the trial commenced against co-accused Pramod Singh before the Court of J.M. Lansdowne. The concerned Court, on conclusion of trial, reached to the conclusion that there was no evidence against the main accused Pramod Singh. Accordingly, the trial resulted in acquittal of Pramod Singh vide order dated 19.9.2018.

It is also argued that the Trial Court did not notice the fact that no evidence could be collected by the investigating agency during investigation against the applicants; however, the Trial Court, ignoring this fact, simply took the cognizance on the basis of submission of charge-sheet.

The learned counsel for the informant- respondent no.3 fairly admits the fact that the co- accused Pramod Singh has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

From a perusal of the FIR dated 11.7.2017, it is apparent that the informant Umeshwar Singh laid all the allegations against co-accused Pramod Singh regarding taking away his daughter to Ludhiana on 3.6.2017. However, when the accused Pramod Singh came back, the informant's daughter was not present along with him.

Admittedly, there is no evidence on record whether Jayanti Devi, daughter of informant, is alive or not. However, as per the FIR, she went with the accused Pramod Singh to Ludhiana. There is no prima facie evidence on record that the present applicants were along with Jayanti Devi at the relevant point of time.

Admittedly, applicant nos.1 and 2, namely, Kalyan Singh and Musi Devi are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, whereas applicant no.3-Geeta Devi is the sister in law of Jayanti Devi. There is no evidence on record to suggest that any threatening was given to Jayanti Devi by the applicants. It is also admitted that when the accused Pramod Singh left his house, on that day, Jayanti Devi was with him. There is no prima facie evidence on record to suggest that at that time, present applicants were also present along with Jayanti Devi. Thus, it can safely be inferred that no prima facie evidence is available on record against the applicants to summon them under Sections 365 read with 120-B IPC. The concerned Court did not peruse the evidence. It simply summoned the applicants on the basis of submission of charge-sheet.

For the above reasons, the present C482 application is liable to be allowed. The same is thus, allowed. As a result, the entire proceedings pending against the applicants, as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment, are quashed and set aside qua the present applicants.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 31.08.2021 Rdang