Dismissed

Rakam Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2010CRM-M/17361/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mentioned in connection with a writ petition under Cr.P.C. regarding an FIR involving abduction and mangling of a daughter. The court found the petition to be frivolous, misconceived, and fully within the domain of the investigating agency to handle arrest decisions. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plea for direction to arrest accused respondents and arrangement of accused No.7 and 9 was dismissed.

Rakam Singh and Anr. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-17361 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-17361 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2010

¶4

Rakam Singh and another ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General Haryana.

¶11

Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)

¶12

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to official respondents to arrest respondents No.5 & 6 pursuant to FIR No.74 dated 24^th May, 2010, under Sections 363, 366A IPC, registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, with a further prayer that respondents No.7 to 9 be involved in the FIR.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR in question was lodged as their daughter, namely, Monika was enticed and taken away by respondent No.5 in connivance with respondents No.6 to 9. According to learned counsel, despite lodging of FIR, police is not arresting the accused and no action is contemplated against respondents No.7 to 9.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. M-17361 of 2010 2

¶16

It is evident that FIR was lodged as recently as on 24^th May, 2010. It has been alleged in the FIR that the daughter of the petitioner was taken away by respondent No.5 with intention to marry her despite her being under age. Admittedly, investigation of the case is still pending. The plea of the petitioner for a direction to arrest the accused is without any merit. The investigating agency, which is looking into the matter, is competent to take appropriate decision in this regard. The plea of the petitioner to arraign accused No.7 and 9 as accused, is totally misplaced. The matter falls purely within the domain of the investigating agency. The petition is not only frivolous but totally misconceived. The same is hereby dismissed.

¶17

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶18

2.7.2010 'rajpal'

Rakam Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakam Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Salil Sondhi @ Babbal Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha Vs State of Punjab

M/S Maruti Tyres, Vs Apollo Tyres Ltd, Ggr