DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dtd. 8/1/2020, vide which the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner/accused under Ss. 343, 379-A, 420, 506, 120-B of the IPC and Sec. 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of complainant Titova Elana, a Russian National, it is stated that she and the petitioner were having some love affair and she came to India and met petitioner at Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi. The petitioner brought her to Chandigarh and she lived with petitioner from 18/7/2019 to 24/7/2019 at Panchkula and Zirakpur and the also stayed in a hotel at Panchkula. During this process, the petitioner had snatched her mobile phone and money in dollars. The police, after registration of the case, investigated the same and later on added the relevant provisions of the IT Act as well.

(3.) Learned counsel further argued that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that the offence under the provisions of IT Act is not made out. Learned counsel further argued that even the offences under Ss. 343, 379-A IPC are not made out as it is the case of the complainant that she came to India of her own and thereafter, she stayed with the petitioner.