MANJIT KAUR @ SONA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against dismissal of her application for discharge vide impugned order dated 14.06.2013; and the order of framing of the charge against her, dated 05.07.2013; passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.

(2.) The learned counsel contends that the petitioner was kept in column No.7, in the FIR, which pertains to 'suspect or unknown' accused. When the factum of FIR came to the knowledge of the petitioner, her father-in-law, made an application to the DIG/BR/ASR for inquiry. The DSP (Rural) conducted the inquiry and nothing incriminating came up against the petitioner. Subsequently, SP(D) also inquired into the matter in pursuance of order dated 28.12.2010, of the SSP Batala, wherein also, no incriminating evidence was collected against the petitioner. These two reports in favour of the petitioner were not filed by the SHO at the time of filing the supplementary challan.

(3.) The petitioner was also declared proclaimed offender against the rules and the competent authority omitted her name from the list of proclaimed offenders on the report of the committee constituted in this regard. The co-accused stand acquitted by the trial Court. It is next contended that the prosecution withheld the documents favouring the petitioner at the filing of supplementary challan. It is further contended that no order has been passed on the application for directing the prosecution to place on record the documents with the challan. Thus, the learned counsel submits that order dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure P-1), vide which the application for discharging the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure P-2), whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner, are against the record and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He cites Neelesh Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 2 CriCC 827.