The court dismissed a petition for quashing prosecution proceedings. Distinguishing a prior case involving a runaway marriage, the court held that the facts here involving allegations of rape against a minor did not warrant quashing as no ground was made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM M- 14512 of 2013
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-14512 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 7, 2013
Amarjit Kaur and others
…..Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.D.R. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The fate of the petitioner rest upon the statement of Harjit Kaur, prosecutrix, to be made in the Court and on the appreciation of reasonably good defence available to the petitioner, however, no ground is made out for quashing the proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sh.Jitender Kumar Sharma Vs. State and another , 2010 (4) RCR (Civil)59 where in a case of run away marriage with a minor girl, the FIR was quashed by the High Court.
CRM M- 14512 of 2013
[2]
I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the said case. In that case the prosecutrix, a minor, had throughout expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner claiming to be his wife. In view of the circumstances, she had been kept in a home called Nirmal Chaya. On quashing of the proceedings, she was permitted to join the company of petitioner.
So far as present case is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed rape upon prosecutrix who was minor. The version of the prosecution till date is not favourable to the petitioner as such this petition deserves to be dismissed observing that the facts and circumstances of Jatinder Kumar Sharma’s case (supra) being distinguishable, the rule adopted cannot be considered as a precedent in the present case.
Dismissed.
May 7, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing proceedings should be allowed given non-favourable prosecution version.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sh.Jitender Kumar Sharma Vs. State and anotherDistinguished¶18
Sh.Jitender Kumar Sharma Vs. State and another, 2010 (4) RCR (Civil)59
Jatinder Kumar Sharma's caseDistinguished¶22
Jatinder Kumar Sharma's case (supra)
Amarjit Kaur and others
State of Punjab and others
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
