Crl. Misc.-M. No. 20192 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.-M. No. 20192 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.11.2011 Tirath Singh ........Petitioner Versus Saranjeet Kaur ........Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. K. Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. On 25.08.2011, while considering the fact that notice issued to the respondent was received back with the report that she was not available at home and her father refused to receive the notice and notice was affixed on the door of her house, again fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent for 07.11.2011 and the following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially FIR No.337 dated 22.8.2009 was got registered by the respondent alleging that her husband had committed rape on her. Name of the petitioner was also mentioned in the FIR that he was accompanying her husband at the time of incident. However, no allegations regarding rape were made against the petitioner. On investigation, the allegations were found to be false and challan was filed only under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC. After presentation of challan in the FIR, a private complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that in fact, the petitioner had committed rape on her. Prior to the filing of complaint in question, the complainant did not state during the Crl. Misc.-M. No. 20192 of 2011 (O&M) -2- investigation of the FIR that in fact, the petitioner had committed rape on her. The complaint has been filed with false and concocted story.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of order dated 25.08.2011 passed by this Court, the petitioner had put in appearance before the Court below and furnished his bail bonds. As per office report, the respondent was not still present at home and her mother was there. She refused to acknowledge receipt of the notice and notice has been pasted outside her house. The case was taken up twice, but no one has appeared for the respondent. The respondent has the knowledge of the proceedings, as twice, her father and mother have been apprised of the pendency of the case before this Court. Considering the aforesaid facts, interim order dated 25.08.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. 07.11.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) harjeet Judge