BARJINDER SINGH @ MAKHAN Vs. CBI, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of framing of charge, has approached this Court through the present revision petition.

(2.) On the threshold, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under Section 384 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, no money was extorted by putting any person in fear, although mere allegation of demand of money has been levelled. No evidence is available on record to suggest that in order to extort the money, the petitioner was hand-in-glove with the Investigating Agency at Moga.

(3.) The statement of Manpreet Kaur recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 12.2.2008 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala claiming that names of Bharat Bhushan, Inderjeet Singh and others were wrongly included by Raman Kumar, the then Sub Inspector, P.S.City-1 Moga in case FIR No.82 of 18.4.2007 at the instance of the present petitioner and others has no legal sanctity in the light of statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 25.4.2007 which reveals a woeful story that Bharat Bhushan and Inderjeet Singh were amongst those persons who had forced Manpreet Kaur to commit sexual intercourse. To strengthen his argument, reliance has been placed on an affidavit filed by Manpreet Kaur before the Supreme Court of India, wherein, she has specifically stated that the statement made before CJM, Moga was voluntarily made. In the absence of necessary ingredients of extortion, a substantive charge under section 384 IPC could not have been framed by the trial Court.