Criminal Revision No. 1011 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1011 of 2005 Date of Decision: 6.8.2008 Anita Aggarwal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by Anita Aggarwal praying that impugned order, whereby charges have been framed against her on 5.3.2005, be set aside. Petitioner along with her brother Basant Bansal was named as accused in case FIR No. 162 dated 4.4.2004 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC. Petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 366 read with Section 34 IPC. In the FIR, eight persons have been named as accused. Case of the petitioner is that Basant Bansal got married with Ms. Neha Gulia Criminal Revision No. 1011 of 2005 2 on 10.2.2004 at Rewari by way of customary Hindu Marriage Rites. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure P1 i.e. birth certificate of Neha Gulia to contend that she was born on 12.5.1985 and was major on the date of marriage. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon affidavit (Annexure P2) executed by Neha Gulia in which she stated that she has passed 10+2 examination and her date of birth in the certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, is 12.5.1985. She has further stated that she was married with Basant Rai without any pressure, undue influence and with her free consent. Annexure P3 are various photographs of the couple having gone to Hill Station and at various other places. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Annexure P5 i.e. Criminal Misc. No. 16965-M of 2004 instituted in this Court by Basant Rai and Neha seeking protection from this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon order (Annexure P6) passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 423 of 2004 whereby Warrant Officer was appointed. Annexure P7 is the report of the Warrant Officer. The Warrant Officer has stated that Neha had made a statement to him stating that she is major and she has married the younger brother of the petitioner. The statement so made has been attached as Annexure P8. It is further stated that the family of Basant Bansal was involved in impugned FIR (Annexure P9). Reliance has also been placed on various letters written by Neha to contend that it was a love marriage between the brother of the petitioner and Neha. Counsel Criminal Revision No. 1011 of 2005 3 further stated that FIR has been recorded at the instance of Satbir Singh Gulia, father of Neha. Counsel further contends that the marriage of Basant Bansal, younger brother of petitioner and Neha was according to their own accord. It is later that Neha has changed her version and has deserted Basant Bansal. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that even if it is held that Basant Bansal had not effected marriage and had committed an offence, petitioner cannot be held to be liable. Petitioner is elder sister who is married and is residing at Delhi. The marriage of petitioner was performed 20 years before the occurrence i.e. marriage of Basant Bansal with Neha. Counsel for the petitioner states that it is apparent that the petitioner, who is residing at Delhi, has no control over her younger brother. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that as per ration card, Neha was more than 18 years of age. Mr. Sunil Nehra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi 2005(1) Recent Criminal Reports 297 to contend that the documents which have been annexed with the present petition cannot be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. He has further stated that even trial Court at the time of framing of charge is precluded from looking into the documents or evidence produced by the accused. These documents are to be proved in defence and at the time of framing of charge the same cannot be taken into Criminal Revision No. 1011 of 2005 4 consideration. Petitioner, if so advised, as per ratio of Debendra Nath Pandhi's case (supra) can prove all these documents, which have been annexed and mentioned in my order, before the trial Court in defence. Mr. Sunil Nehra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, further submits that out of 22 witnesses cited, 13 have been examined qua the co-accused. The proceedings qua the petitioner in pursuance of impugned charge have been stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 2.12.2005. Even though the petitioner may have a good case on merits, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner as the documents annexed cannot be taken into consideration and as in accordance with the provisions of law they are to be proved by leading evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments before the trial Court at appropriate stage. This Court has always held that once trial proceeds the same has to culminate into acquittal or conviction. Since the proceedings are stayed against the petitioner, she may accept the evidence already recorded or cross-examine witnesses afresh or may give the option as to how she intend to proceed with the evidence recorded in her absence. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that she will cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in her absence but in the presence of her counsel shall be binding upon her. Trial Court may also specify Criminal Revision No. 1011 of 2005 5 any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. On the furnishing of undertaking, the personal appearance of petitioner shall stand exempted. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 6, 2008 “DK”