HASSAN DIN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Sec. 482 of Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', for short), for quashment of order dtd. 23/3/2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Billawar ('trial Court', for short), in case No.13/IKHTAMI, vide which protest petition filed by the petitioner against the closure report filed by the investigating agency in FIR No.37/2022 of Police Station Billawar came to be dismissed.

(2.) Some uncontroverted facts of the case are that daughter of the petitioner, namely, Yasmin Bano, went missing. He lodged a missing report, which came to be entered in Daily Diary No.5 dtd. 21/3/2020 in Police Station Billawar and later FIR No.37/2020 for offences under Sec. 366/109 IPC came to be registered in the said Police Station on 2/5/2020 Daughter of the petitioner was recovered on 7/10/2020 from the custody of respondent No.2 at Lakhanpur Nakka and he was arrested. Statement of the girl was recorded by the trial Court, whereby she deposed that she had converted from her religion of birth, i.e. Islam and embraced Hindu religion and assumed her new Hindu name as 'Mahi'. She also stated that she fell in love with and married respondent No.2 out of her volition under the Arya Samajis' way of life. She alleged that her 'Nikah' with one Altaf Hussain was only an engagement and was not a marriage. On the basis of this statement, accused/respondent No.2 came to be released on bail by the trial Court on 8/10/2020. The investigation culminated into a closure report filed in the trial court on 7/1/2021, which came to be registered as file No.13/Challan. The petitioner being complainant was summoned by the trial Court on 30/1/2021. He filed a protest petition and assailed the closure report on various grounds. However, learned trial Court vide impugned order dismissed his protest petition.

(3.) Allegation of the petitioner is that his daughter, a simpleton village girl with humble background and humble worldly exposure, was kidnapped by respondent No.2 against her wish with the connivance of other private respondents. The investigating agency, however, failed to conduct fair investigation.