Dismissed

Gurnam v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2016CRM-M/2803/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking arrest of an accused for abduction of a minor daughter. The court dismissed the petition, noting that investigation was already underway and citing precedents against granting arrest directions in such circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction for arrest granted.

Gurnam Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CRM M-2803 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM M-2803 of 2016

¶5

Date of decision : 27.01.2016

Gurnam

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana & ors.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

RAJAN GUPTA J.

¶14

This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to respondent no. 2 to arrest respondent no. 4 for abducting petitioner’s daughter who is a minor. According to learned counsel, this court granted protection to the couple vide order dated January 15, 2016. Thereafter, police has not arrested the accused namely Jasvir Singh.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

Operative part of the order passed on January 15, 2016 in CRM M-1651 of 2016 reads as under:-

¶17

“After hearing counsel for the parties, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to look into the representation, Annexure P/4 preferred by petitioners and take appropriate steps, if circumstances so warrant.

¶18

However, this court does not express any opinion with regard to validity or otherwise of the marriage.”

¶19

It is evident that this court merely disposed of the

¶20

petition with a direction that respondent no. 2 would look into the

¶21

AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.28 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CRM M-2803 of 2016

¶23

¶24

grievance of the petitioners. This court did not express any opinion regarding validity or otherwise of the marriage. Admittedly, a FIR has already been registered on the complaint of father of the prosecutrix and investigation is in progress. This court would normally not give any direction for arresting the accused (see M.C. Abraham and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 (1) RCR (Crl.) 452.) Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

¶25

January 27, 2016 Ajay

¶26

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶27

AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.28 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gurnam v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep @ Pardeep Chandila Vs State of Haryana

Patanjali Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Jagbir

Raju and Ors. Vs Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Anr.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmail Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh and Anr.