Allowed

Amandeep Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2024CRM-M/1650/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition against FIR for kidnapping of a minor by his stepmother to usurp his property. The State reported an oral compromise; the complainant, victim and witnesses stated they did not want to pursue the case. The High Court held further proceedings would be a misuse of process and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.86 dated 09.06.2018 under Sections 365/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Amandeep Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

¶2

CRM-M-1650-2019 Reserved on: 28.02.2024 Pronounced on: 04.03.2024 2024:PHHC: 030327

¶3

AMANDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS

. . . . PETITIONERS

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB

. . . . RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

¶11

Present: - Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶15

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR No.86 dated 09.06.2018 (Annexure P1) under Sections 365/34 IPC registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶16

Status report dated 27.02.2024 filed by way of affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Ajnala, Amritsar Rural on behalf of the respondent-State, has been filed and the same is taken on record. .

¶17

FIR was lodged on the statement of Mukhtar Singh, as per which his Son Tirath Singh had died by consuming Sulphas tablets being perturbed by his in-laws and regarding, which FIR No.80 dated 02.06.2018 under Section 306/34 IPC had been registered against his in-laws. Said Tirath Singh had two sons namely, Princedeep Singh aged 16 years and Jugraj Singh aged 14 years. About 7 acres of land, bank balance and policies are in the

¶18

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.03.05 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-1650-2019

¶20

2024:PHHC: 030327

¶21

name of Jugraj Singh. It was alleged that on 02.06.2018 at about 7 PM, Amandeep Kaur, the daughter-in-law of the complainant, along with her brother Amrinder Singh @ Manak, relative Rana Partap Singh and 2-3 unknown persons armed with weapons kidnapped Jugraj Singh, for the purpose of usurping the property in the name of said Jugraj Singh. Complainant made efforts through respectables for return of his grandson, but all the accused refused. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered.

¶22

Seeking the quashing of the FIR, petitioners alleged their false implication.

¶23

At the outset, ld. State counsel has drawn attention towards the reply as filed by the respondent-State, as per which matter stood compromised between the parties. Ld. State counsel, on the basis of reply filed by the respondent, submitted that complainant Mukhtar Singh along with victim Jugraj Singh; and his son Harbhej Singh joined the investigation on 10.09.2019. All of them got recorded their respective statements, as per which on the date of occurrence, petitioner No.1 Amandeep Kaur had taken away Jugraj Singh with her and that after sometime, said Jugraj had come back. They have now entered into an oral compromise and do not intend to pursue the matter further. The reply submitted by the respondent-State is accompanied by the statements of Mukhtar Singh (complainant of the case), Jugraj Singh (the alleged kidnapped boy) and that of Harbhej Singh (son of the complainant).

¶24

It emerges that in fact, Tirath Singh was earlier married to Sarabjit Kaur. From that wedlock, Tirath Singh had two sons namely, Princedeep Singh and Jugraj Singh. After the death of Sarabjit Kaur, Tirath

¶25

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.03.05 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

CRM-M-1650-2019

¶28

2024:PHHC: 030327

¶29

Singh solemnized second marriage with petitioner Amandeep Kaur, who was

¶30

the step mother of Jugraj Singh.

¶31

As per the statements made by Mukhtar Singh, Jugraj Singh and Harbhej Singh, Jugraj Singh had been taken away on the date of occurrence by his step mother, Amandeep Kaur and that after sometime, he had come back.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid statement made by the complaint, the boy Jugraj Singh and the other witnesses, continuation of the proceedings in furtherance of the FIR shall be a gross misuse of process of law.

¶33

Consequently, present petition is allowed. FIR No.86 dated 09.06.2018 (Annexure P1) under Sections 365/34 IPC registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶34

04.03.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) �� JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶35

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.03.05 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Amandeep Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Gurmej Singh Alias Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Vicky @ Boota Ram and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jagveer Singh Alias Jasveer Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kush Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ashu @ Aas Mohammad and Another Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Singh @ Binda Vs State of Punjab