IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22424 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.7.2011. Brahm Dutt ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition, Brahm Dutt seeks quashing of First Information Report No.77 dated June 27th, 2010 under Sections 109 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. 2. Firstly the facts. The petitioner moved application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar stating that on February 17th, 2010 at about 8.30 am Joginder Mohan along with his family members attacked on his house. He closed the door of the house. They went on the terrace from the outside and hurled abuses upon him. They also caused damage to the house. The petitioner informed the control room but no action was taken by the Police. The accused attacked on him because his son did not agree to marry Rashmi daughter of Joginder Mohan. 3. On the statement of petitioner, Commissioner, Amritsar conducted an inquiry through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Amritsar. During inquiry, it revealed that Rashmi daughter of Joginder Mohan and Atul Sharma son of the petitioner were class fellows and they were in love with each other. They wanted to marry but the proposal could not be matured. Atul Sharma went abroad. Rashmi got married in Hoshiarpur. Inspite of that, Atul Criminal Misc. No. M-22424 of 2010 (O&M) (2) Sharma used to send messages to Rashmi on telephone from abroad. The petitioner was also harassing Rashmi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the FIR was registered on the complaint made by the petitioner against Joginder Mohan and others and during inquiry also, no evidence worth the name was found against the petitioner that at any point of time, he tried to outrage the modesty of Rashmi. On being questioned to the State counsel as to what evidence was collected by the prosecution to connect the accused with the commission of offence under Section 354 IPC, no convincing answer could be given. 5. Taking into consideration the inquiry report and other material placed on record, it cannot be proved from any angle that at any point of time, the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of Rashmi. Even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken its face value, no offence under Section 354 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, First Information Report No.77 dated June 27th, 2010 under Sections 109 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 12.7.2011. SN