As per the prosecution, the victim Mamta was recovered on 25th December, 2002, from the possession of Bauna and Vijender.
The learned Magistrate took companynizance on 3rd February, 2003, and ordered issue of summons to the accused.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The High Court also quashed the charge sheet submitted by CB CID in Crime Case No.458 of 2002 C.B. No.282 of 2003 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as I.P.C 2/ 2 The short facts are that, upon a written report submitted at the companycerned police station by petitioner Mukhtiar Singh, a First Information Report was drawn up on 16th November, 2002, for offences under Sections under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. Sahib Singh, Parkash and Rameshwar were named as accused in the First Information Report.
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the informant and directed the learned Magistrate to record the statement of Mamta under Section 164 of the Code.
This order was companyplied with on 17th February, 2003.
When the learned Magistrate called for the report from the police on the said petition, the latter appears to have submitted charge sheet on 13th January, 2003 and, on the same day, a report was submitted to the companyrt that it is number necessary to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the companye because charge sheet has already been submitted.
Another petition filed by the informant for transfer of the case to CB CID was also allowed by the learned Single Judge on 27th March, 2003, and after companypleting the investigation, CB CID filed charge sheet dated 28th October, 2003.
During the pendency of investigation, a petition was filed by the informant on 10th January, 2003, for recording the statement of Mamta under Section 164 of the Code.
Thereupon, the companyrt rejected the petition filed by the informant.
Of companyrse, it was number stated in the petition that such a prayer was made before the learned Magistrate and the same has been rejected on the basis of 3/ 3 report submitted by the police with the assertion that charge sheet has already been filed.
By the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge allowed all the petitions, quashed the charge sheet submitted by CB CID and gave directions to which reference has been made hereinabove.
In the meanwhile, a petition was filed by the informant under Section 482 of the companye before the High Court companyplaining therein that, in spite of request made by him before the Station House Officer and Circle Officer, the statement of the victim has number been recorded under Section 164 of the Code.
Heard learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code in which she named Ramlal, Bhura and Bobby, sons of Ramlal, Bauna and Vijender, apart from the persons named in the First Information Report.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
