KULJINDER KAUR Vs. CHETAN NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the complainant has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby the accused were discharged in case/FIR No. 54 dated 20.4.2007 registered under Section 363/511/34 IPC at P.S. City Gurdaspur and further order dated 22.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby revision petition filed by the State against the aforesaid order of discharge was dismissed.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, from the facts of the case, attempt to abduct the prosecutrix with intention to secretly and wrongly confine her, is established on record and thus, the basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 365/511/34 IPC are clearly made out against both the accused. It has been averred that inspite of making application dated 7.7.2009 for framing charges under Section 365/511/34 IPC, the trial Court has not even framed the charges against the accused under Section 363/511/34 IPC, for which, the FIR in question was registered.

(3.) To elaborate his arguments further, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at the stage of framing of charges, merely a strong suspicion taking cognizance of the facts from the report under Section 173 CrPC is enough to frame a charge and there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospects of conviction. Moreover, the Court is not obliged to see the truth and veracity of allegations at the stage of framing of charges, whereas in the present case, the trial Court has built up a case of defence and has taken into consideration the evidence/material produced by the defence, which could not have been done. It has been further submitted that even the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur has committed a manifest error while dismissing the revision filed by the State and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.