Crl. Misc. No.M-16711 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-16711 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.03.2011 Angrez Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to recover the daughter of the petitioner and to take a legal action against respondents No.5 to 7. The allegation of the petitioner is that his daughter, namely, Amandeep was kidnapped by respondent No.5 in the month of February, 2009. Accordingly, FIR No.82 dated 10.02.2009 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 406/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Nissing. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal acquitted Manjeet Singh, respondent No.5 and Gagandeep as the prosecutrix had made a statement that she was married to respondent No.5. Thereafter, respondent No.5, in Crl. Misc. No.M-16711 of 2010 2 connivance with respondent No.6, sold the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Amandeep to respondent No.7. It was further submitted that the petitioner had received a telephonic call from his daughter. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karnal under Section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of his daughter and the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the respondent No.4 to produce the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Amandeep on 15.04.2010. On 15.04.2010, the respondent No.4 submitted the report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the daughter of the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent No.7 at her own will. When the petitioner failed go get his daughter recovered, he again moved an application to respondent No.3 for recovering his daughter on 23.04.2010 but till today, no action has been taken by respondent No.3, in this regard. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued. In pursuance to the notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Affidavit of Babu Ram, A.S.I has also been filed. Heard. It is not disputed that the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide his order dated 28.04.2009 acquitted Manjeet Singh, respondent No.5 and Gagandeep observing that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Manjit Singh alias Bhola in furtherance of the common intention of the other co-accused, namely, Gangandeep Singh had abducted, enticed, allured or kidnapped the prosecutrix with an intention to compel her to get marry with him. Rather, it is the prosecutrix who had accompanied the accused Manjit Singh alias Bhola out of her sweet will and consent with an intention to get married. The said order has become final. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents, as well as, learned counsel for the State, as also, on perusing Crl. Misc. No.M-16711 of 2010 3 the petition and the reply filed by respective respondents including the affidavit of A.S.I. Babu Ram, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. It is evident that the daughter of the petitioner is now married to respondent No.7. The said marriage is with her consent. On a complaint filed by the petitioner, the Director General-Sh. V.N. Rai entrusted the enquiry to Sh. Madan Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his report, stating therein, that the daughter of the petitioner has married with respondent No.7 with her consent. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karnal under Section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of his daughter and the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the respondent No.4 to produce the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Amandeep on 15.04.2010. On 15.04.2010, the respondent No.4 submitted the report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the daughter of the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent No.7 at her own will. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for recovery of his daughter. Affidavit has been filed by A.S.I. Babu Ram. A perusal of the same shows that he was directed to go to Alipur Thakha Thana Bhot, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampuri (U.P.) to enquire the matter as the daughter of the petitioner was stated to be residing with respondent No.7 as his wife. On 12.03.2010, A.S.I. Babu Ram visited the place, where, Amandeep Kaur, daughter of the petitioner was residing with her husband Harpal Singh i.e respondent No.7. The contents of the said affidavit read as under :- “4. That the deponent had gone there on 12.03.2010, where the said Amandeep Kaur, her husband Harpal Singh along with the members of their family were present. The deponent had also Crl. Misc. No.M-16711 of 2010 4 called the Sarpanch of the Village namely Safkat Hassan son of Qadim Hassan Caste Turk resident of Tha Ha Khurd. Then the deponent had recorded the statement of the said Amandeep Kaur in the presence of the said Sarpanch of village. 5. That when the deponent had recorded the statement of said Amandeep Kaur, she stated in her statement that she have got married with Harpal Singh on 31.07.2009 with her own free will and without any pressure. She has further stated that complaint filed by her father is false and frivolous, and she has no problem here. She has also stated in her statement that her parents have illegally harassed by giving false applications and she has already informed to her parents about the marriage through District Courts, Rampur. 6. That the deponent had also recorded the statement of the Sarpanch and also verified the statement of said Amandeep Kaur in the presence of said Sarpanch and the same were submitted before the D.S.P./SHO Nissing and the same were filed in the office by the order of D.G.P. Law and Order.” It is, therefore, evident that A.S.I. Babu Ram personally visited the Village in U.P., where, the daughter of the petitioner resides and recorded the statement not only of Amandeep Kaur but also the Sarpanch of the Village, who accompanied him to her house. In fact, she has stated in her affidavit that her father keeps filing false and frivolous complaints and that she had informed her father about the marriage. A photocopy of the affidavit of Amandeep Kaur received at Police Station through fax has also been handed over to this Court. The same is taken on record. Respondents no.5 and 6 have handed over the original of the same, which is also taken on record. In the said affidavit, which is in hindi, it is stated that she is happily residing with her husband and her in-laws. It is further stated by her that she apprehends danger to her life, in case, she comes to Crl. Misc. No.M-16711 of 2010 5 Village Chakda, District Karnal. Along with the said affidavit, she has also placed on record the photocopy of the certificate of her marriage with respondent No.7-Harpal Singh. From the above, it is apparent that the daughter of the petitioner is residing happily with her present husband i.e respondent No.7 at Village Bilaspur, District Rampuri (U.P.). In view of the above facts, no further order is required to be passed and the present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 11.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet