HIRA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Crl.M.C. lay challenge to the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby the Petitioners were ordered to be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 346/366 read with Section 34 of IPC. Petitioners Urmila Misra and Kiran were additionally also ordered to be summoned for the offence punishable under Section 506/34 of IPC.

(2.) On a complaint dated 08.11.2006 a case under Section 363 IPC being FIR No.399/2006 dated 08.11.2006 was registered in Police Station (PS) Delhi Cantt. on a complaint made by Satish Kumar father of the prosecutrix. The sum and substance of the complaint made by earlier said Satish Kumar is that on 07.11.2006 at about 3:50 P.M. his daughter 'S' had left home on her scooty DL-9SP-2838 to take tuitions. She was accompanied by her friend Rajni. She had not returned home. The Complainant raised suspicion against one Pradeep Sehrawat son of Surender Sehrawat (subsequently charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 363/366/368/376 IPC). During the course of investigation the prosecutrix 'S' was recovered. The police proceeded to get her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As far as Petitioners are concerned, the prosecutrix told the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') that when she was brought back to Delhi she was kept in the house belonging to Mahabal Mishra and Heera Mishra situated at Mahavir Enclave. She was further kept in the main road office at Mahavir Enclave belonging to Mahabal Mishra. The prosecutrix stated to the learned 'MM' that Smt. Urmila Mishra wife of Mahabal Mishra and her daughter (whose name the prosecutrix was not aware) came to meet her. They asked her to get married to Pradeep. The prosecutrix informed the learned 'MM' that the two (ladies) threatened the prosecutrix that nobody could reach there and if she did not agree, they will get the marriage performed forcibly.

(3.) A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented to the Court of learned 'MM' wherein accused Pradeep was kept in column no.4 and produced in custody whereas it was stated that there was not sufficient evidence against accused Devender, Sunil, Surender and Sonu. They were, therefore, kept in column no.2.