Crl. Misc. No. M-34039 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34039 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.03.2011 Kulwinder Kaur @ Bholi ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Kulwinder Kaur @ Bholi for quashing of complaint case No. 160-1 dated 14.9.2005 titled as “Rajwinder Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh etc.” filed under Sections 363,366-A,376 and 120-B IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, summoning order dated 25.1.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga and order dated 5.7.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide which, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. Notice of motion was issued on 5.1.2011 and following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case by respondent No.2, whereas, the petitioner has been residing in Canada even Crl. Misc. No. M-34039 of 2010 (O&M) (2) before lodging of the complaint. During the investigation conducted in the case, the petitioner was found innocent and was kept in Column No.2. Without effecting service upon the petitioner, she was declared as Proclaimed Offender. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 and the main accused Sukhwinder Pal Singh remained as husband and wife for about two years and stayed together at different places. Main accused-Sukhwinder Pal Singh and his mother-Phino have been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2008.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, she was residing in Canada even before lodging of the complaint. During investigation conducted by the police, the petitioner was found innocent and was kept in column No.2. Subsequently no service was effected upon the petitioner and since she was not in India and was away to Canada, she was declared P.O. Learned counsel also submits that main accused-Sukhwinder Pal Singh (husband) and Phino (mother-in-law) have already been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.10.2008 and evidence is also the same against the present petitioner. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no service was effected upon the petitioner and even no efforts were made by the trial Court to effect any service in any manner. The petitioner was not aware with regard to P.O. proceedings and nothing is there on the part of the petitioner that she willfully remained absent or avoided the service of the trial Court and without following the due procedure, impugned P.O. order has been passed, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-34039 of 2010 (O&M) (3) Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the complaint, summoning order as well as order vide which the petitioner has been declared Proclaimed Offender. In this case, FIR No. 271 dated 27.11.2003 was registered under Sections 363,366-A, 376 IPC at Police Station Moga. After investigation of the case, as the petitioner was found innocent, she was kept in column No.2 and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 14.9.2005 on the same allegations as levelled in the FIR, in which, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 25.1.2006. Both FIR as well as complaint cases were consolidated and charges were framed under Sections 363,366,376,120-B IPC against mother in law and husband. Since the petitioner was staying in Canada, P.O. proceedings were initiated against her in her absence and after expiry of 30 days, she was declared P.O. vide order dated 5.7.2006. The trial was conducted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga and accused- Sukhwinder Pal Singh (husband) and Phino Kaur (mother-in-lw) were acquitted vide judgment dated 18.10.2008. The evidence against the present petitioner is also the same. It has also come in the said judgment that complainant-respondent No.2 had eloped with accused-Sukhwinder Pal Singh and solemnized marriage, which was contrary to the wishes of her parents. As per statement of complainant-respondent No.2 before the Magistrate, it was denied by her that she was ever kidnapped or taken away against her will and she stayed with Sukhwinder Pal Singh as his wife. After arrest of Sukhwinder Pal Singh, complainant was sent to Nari Niketan and after recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she opted to accompany her parents and her custody was handed over to her parents. After that due to pressure of the parents, the aforesaid complaint Crl. Misc. No. M-34039 of 2010 (O&M) (4) was made. Admittedly, the complaint was filed when the petitioner was not in India and no service was effected upon the petitioner and even no efforts were made by the trial Court to effect any service. All these facts clearly shows that the present petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, she was not involved in any manner. Main accused, namely, Sukhwinder Pal Singh (husband) and Phino (mother-in-law) have also been acquitted by the trial Court as no evidence was found against them. The same evidence is against the petitioner and no purpose would be served by allowing the petitioner to face the trial as it would be sheer wastage of the time of the Court. This view has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Crl. A. No. D-638-DB of 2007 decided on 17.3.2011, titled as Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab. In view of the facts, law position explained above as well as the fact that main accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court, no case is made out against the present petitioner under Section 363,366- A, 376 and 120-B IPC. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and complaint case No. 160-1 dated 14.9.2005 titled as “Rajwinder Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh etc.” filed under Sections 363,366-A,376 and 120-B IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, summoning order dated 25.1.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga and order dated 5.7.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide which, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender are quashed. March 22, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-34039 of 2010 (O&M) (5) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No