Disposed

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2013CRM-M/24512/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction against a third party for allegedly concealing that the petitioner's daughter was previously married. The Court found the date of marriage had passed 19 years age. No direction was issued as the FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner and a cancellation report was filed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharam Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-24512 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-24512 of 2013 Date of decision:-05.10.2013

Dharam Pal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG Haryana. Mr. H.P.S Ishar, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6.

¶13

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶14

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against respondent No.3Vikram Sandhu for seeking protection orders dated 14.5.2013 (Annexure P-5) in CRM M-15822 of 2013 by concealing that Ranjna Devi daughter of petitioner was earlier married. Further prayer has been made that investigation in FIR No.78 dated 11.5.2013 (Annexure P-4) under Section 365/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa, may be carried out as per law.

¶15

Asija Vijay 2013.10.07 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-24512 of 2013

¶17

-2-

¶18

On notice, reply has been filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. In the reply as regards registration of FIR, the allegation in the FIR No.78 dated 11.5.2013 were found to be false. The date of birth of Ranjna is 30.4.1993. She is more than 19 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence. In her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she had gone with Vikram Sandhu with her own free will and performed marriage. Nobody had abducted her.

¶19

On the second aspect that Ranjna was earlier married to one Sanjay son of Kalu Ram on 13.3.2013. This fact has not been mentioned in the FIR No.78 dated 11.5.2013. However, counsel for the State has informed the Court that the Panchayat of the Village has given in writing that daughter of the petitioner Ranjna Devi was earlier married to Sanjay son of Kalu Ram and they all had attended the marriage.

¶20

In view of the above fact, at this stage no direction can be given to the respondents as cancellation report has been filed in the FIR, which was registered at the instance of petitioner. However, petitioner is at liberty to take any action as per law.

¶21

Disposed of.

¶22

05.10.2013 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶23

Asija Vijay 2013.10.07 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay @ Vijender Vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sham Sunder Vs State of Punjab

Geeta Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Piare Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.