KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS -Kulwant Singh and Pushpinder Kaur have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial along with the accused Navdeep Singh (brother of the petitioners) under Sections 363/366/376 read with Section 120-B IPC in case FIR No. 77 dated 21.12.2001, registered at Police Station, Longowal.

(2.) THE aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint made by one Darshan Singh in which it was alleged that his daughter Dilraj Kaur who was a student of +1 in the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Longowal, was kindnapped by accused Navdeep Singh, who is also a student of +2 in the said school by putting her in fear with a view to marry her. In the FIR, it was also alleged that the petitioners Kulwant Singh and Pushpinder Kaur were also having a hand in the kidnapping of his daughter.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , after examination of the four witnesses, namely, PW-1 Darshan Singh (complainant), PW-2 Harbans Singh, PW-3 Dilraj Kaur (prosecutrix) and PW-4 Baljit Singh, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the petitioners for the alleged office. PW-2 Harbans Singh and PW-4 Baljit Singh, who were the alleged eye-witnesses, have deposed that the petitioners were forcing the prosecutrix Dilraj Kaur to enter the train and exhorting Navdeep Singh that she was a very beautiful girl of the town and he should kidnap her and they would manage the affairs. The said application of the prosecution was dismissed by the Court of Sessions because in her statement as PW-3, the prosecutrix nowhere stated that the petitioners Kulwant Singh and Pushpinder Kaur met her or accompanied Navdeep Singh or they forced her to enter the train. She neither named any of the petitioners nor any overt act was attributed to them. It was further found that the testimony of PW-1, father of the prosecutrix, in this respect, appears to be guess work because he nowhere stated that both the petitioners committed any act for accompanying his daughter. After considering the statements of the aforesaid four witnesses, it was found by the Sessions Judge that there was no worthwhile evidence against the petitioners for summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial along with the other accused. Hence, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution was dismissed vide order dated September 24, 2002.