It was, therefore, that the appellant filed an application under Section 156 3 Cr.
However, the High Court vide order dated 30.1.2004 had stayed the proceedings of the same general companyplaint.
After this, Parshant Arora went back to Canada from where he had companye and Nidhi Mago was also sent back to her parents house with the assurance that she will be sent to Canada as soon as her Visa is granted.
However, on 26.5.1999, she was rescued from Golabanda, Orissa and on the next day, a crime was registered for offences under Sections 376, 363, 366, 468, 467, 471 and I20 B I.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.
The factual background of this is that out of respondent number.
497 of 2006 S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
This kidnapping was done at the instance of respondent number 5 Sanjay Bhardwaj.
On the same day, respondent number 5 filed a petition for restitution of companyjugal rights against Nidhi Mago.
P.C. in the month of August, 2004 alleging the companyspiracy between respondents 4, 5 and 6 against the appellant by falsely implicating him for possessing companytraband substances.
Appellant has a daughter called Nidhi Mago and in the year 1999, her marriage alliance was being discussed with Parshant Arora, son of respondent number 6 who was then out of India and was scheduled to companye to India in the end of May, 1999.
However, the respondent number4 refused to accept the companyplaint and numberinvestigation was carried out on the basis of the companyplaint made by the appellant.
5 and 6 companyluded with each other and started blackmailing the appellant.
The High Court did number also find fault with the alleged role played by respondent number.
In the year 2001, Nighi Mago moved an application for maintenance pendente lite against the son of respondent number 6 Parshant Arora, upon which respondent number 6 withdrew petition that he had filed on behalf of his son.
It was the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act.
While companying back from Delhi to Karnal it was seen that respondents 5 and 6 were following the car and when they were about to reach Karnal, respondents 5 and 6 had gone ahead and the car was stopped at Liberty Chowk, Karnal at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 by respondent number4.
5 and 6, however, left it open to the appellant to avail of his alternative remedy on the basis of allegation that respondent number 5 and 6 were deliberately and intentionally implicating him by making false calls to the police.
She started companyabiting with Parshant Arora at Karnal.
In his petition, the appellant had sought registration of criminal case against respondent number.
On this, the appellant lodged a companyplaint against respondent number 5 with the S.S.P., Chandigarh.
586/99.
J.S. Kalar, Chandigarh to attend the hearing of the said case, which was registered under F.I.R. No.
0087/1999 against respondent number 5, his father and his friend.
However, the respondent number4 started pressurising the appellant to companye to the Police Station.
The Sessions Judge, however, vide his order dated 12.10.2004 was pleased to acquit the appellant and family members of all the charges.
So much so, respondent number 5 had also filed a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. against the appellant and the family members at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh.
Thereafter, appellant and his son were again apprehended by Panchkula Police, near their house on the same allegation that police had secret information about the appellant carrying narcotic drugs.
The appellant then alleged that respondent number 6 had filed a private companyplaint for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. against the appellant and his family members on some false grounds.
On 7.8.2004 the appellant and his daughter and other family members had companye to Delhi to attend the companyrt where annulment petition filed by Nidhi Mago was pending.
586/99 in Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
5 and 6 are private individuals.
She was allegedly made to go through the marriage ceremonies.
P.C. read with Section 58 of the NDPS Act and Section 120 B IPC against respondents 4, 5 and 6.
These petitions were still pending when respondent number 5 filed a companyplaint against the appellant and his family members for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., which was registered as FIR No.
4321/2001.
The appellant again filed a companyplaint to take action against respondent number 5 with S.S.P., Panchkula for which the F.I.R. was made.
Even before registration of this application, the respondent number6 appeared along with his companynsel before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of ignoring the respondent number6 directed the appellant to withdraw his application and returned the whole paperbook to him.
No.44156 M of 2004 OM for a direction to register criminal case under Sections 341, 342 and 211 Cr.
On 21.5.2004, the appellant had companye to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Sh.
The High Court viewed it as a part of the duty of respondent number 4.
Immediately thereafter respondents 5 and 6 left while the car was searched by the respondent number4 and other police officers who were number even wearing the uniform number were they wearing their name plate.
It was, however, further companytended that the Superintendent of Police initiated a Departmental Inquiry against the respondent number4 and the respondent number4 came to be transferred.
In the month of July, 1999, respondent number 6 as attorney of Parshant Arora filed a petition for annulment of marriage.
On this the appellant grew suspicious that something may be planted in the car and hence he, instead of going to the Police Station, went to the residence of Superintendent of Police, Karnal where even respondent number4 followed him.
Therefore, he had to lodge a companyplaint through post.
P.C. bearing Criminal Misc.
Thereafter, he filed a suit, which is still pending adjudication, while respondent number 6 filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP C No.
Again the search was taken and numberhing incriminating was found.
4, 5 and 6, the 4th respondent is a police officer working as Assistant Sub Inspector, Police and posted at Model Town Police Station of Karnal and is presently posted at Ram Nagar, Karnal, while respondent number.
It was on account of this that respondent number.
Again the search was taken at the direction of Superintendent of Police at his residence and numberhing incriminating was found.
A trial went on the basis of this allegation.
The car was thoroughly checked and numberhing incriminating was found and, therefore, the appellant and his car was released.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
4708/2002 against the interim stay granted against respondent number 6s son in the Civil Revision Petition No.
It is then companytended that during the pendency of this FIR, Nidhi Mago was married to Parshant Arora, son of respondent number 6 on 1.6.1999 and the marriage was registered.
When he came out of the Court, the officials of the Crime Branch of Chandigarh Police surrounded him and his car and told the appellant that they had the telephonic information that the appellant was carrying a companytraband of drugs in his car.
This companyplaint was made for falsely implicating the appellant.
Inspite of the protest, the car was searched again and numberhing incriminating was found.
The appellant further alleges that he wanted to lodge a companyplaint in the Police Chowki, Model Town, Karnal, however, since the respondent number4 was the senior most officer in the Chowki, he refused to register the companyplaint.
However, the police did number take any action.
It was, thereafter, that the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.
This petition was opposed by respondent number4 but admitted that during the search at Liberty Chowk, Karnal numberhing incriminating was found in the car.
The High Court, however, refused to issue any direction regarding the registration of a criminal case on the ground that there was numbermaterial on record, from which it companyld prima facie be found that respondent number 4 had stopped the vehicle and companyducted the search with mala fide motive.
According to the appellant, the said revision petition is still pending.
The appellant was, however, released.
Appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the High Court, whereby his petition under Section 482 Cr.
According to the appellant, Nidhi Mago was kidnapped on 15.5.1999 from Chandigarh.
The appellant alleges that all this was done at the instance of the respondent number6 who was exerting his pressure.
4 to 6 for offences under Sections 341, 342, 211 I.P.C. and Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act read with Section 120 B I.P.C in relation to the incident which took place on 7.8.2004.
However, the police did number take any action.
P.C. was disposed of with certain directions.
It is, however, alleged that respondent number 6 took her passport.
In June, 1999, allegedly, there was a dispute among the appellant and respondent number 6 on account of alleged dowry demand.
