MANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manjit Kaur, the petitioner has brought this revision petition challenging the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby her application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Inderjit Kaur, Sarpanch, Jaswinder Singh, Swaran Singh and Kauri as accused has been dismissed.

(2.) The case bearing FIR No. 31 dated 09.04.2011 for an offence punishable under sections 363 and 366-A IPC was got registered at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala regarding kidnapping of her daughter Charanjit Kaur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, has dismissed the application for two reasons. According to him, the first reason is non appearance of the names of the persons sought to be summoned as accused in the FIR and the second is that the prosecutrix did not mention their names in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. According to him, while the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was being recorded, Inderjit Kaur, Sarpanch of the village had been present outside the court room and she had threatened the prosecutrix of evil consequences if she named her. According to him, the other reason is also not valid because names of Kauri, Jaswinder Singh and Swaran Singh are there in the FIR. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix is 15 years old girl and that the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is a four line statement claiming that she had been living with Sahib Singh for the last more than three years would mean to convey that the prosecutrix had been living with Sahib Singh from the age of 10 or 11 years. He has further submitted that the two reasons for which the application was dismissed were not available to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and, therefore, the impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.