Nikhil Syal vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Shri Nikhil Syal petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of F.I.R. No. 246 dated 6.10.1998 under Sections 363/366/279/427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. registered in Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda.

The case was registered on the statement of Shri Ajay Pal father of Ms. Bunny Bedi, who levelled allegations against the petitioner and his companion that on 5.10.1998 he went to Bhatinda along with his wife and daughter to see his brotherinlaw Shri Ranjit Singh resident of Model Town, Bhatinda. On 6.10.1998 at about 8.00/8.30 p.m. he along with his brotherinlaw and daughter Ms. Bunny went to Bhagu road to get some documents xeroxed. He and his brotherinlaw went inside the shop to get the photo copy done but his daughter Bunny kept on standing outside the shop. Soon a blue Opel Astra car stopped and the petitioner came out from the back seat of the car and forced his daughter Bunny into the back seat of the car. His daughter and his brotherinlaw shouted and in no time the second boy who on the driving seat of the car fled away. The second boy can be recognised on producing before him. On the above allegations the case was registered and during the course of investigation Ms. Bunny also made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has levelled certain allegations against the petitioner and his companion Raghav Awasthy, who was found driving the car.

It appears that later on some good sense prevailed between the complainant''s family and the family of the petitioner. It has been revealed that in fact the petitioner was a school mate of Ms. Bunny. Certain letters have also been placed on record allegedly written by Ms. Bunny Bedi clearly indicating that she had a soft corner for the petitioner. The petitioner is a young boy and Ms. Bunny Bedi is a young girl of 14 years. Being school mates they might have developed some intimacy. Before this Court Shri Ajay Pal has also made a statement which I have recorded separately in which he has clearly stated that under some misconception he lodged the F.I.R. Even Ms. Bunny Bedi, whose statement I have also recorded, has stated that being a school mate she got a lift in the car of the petitioner but she was never kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner or his friend Raghav Awasthy. In these circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner and his companion under Sections 363/366 IPC would be nothing but a sheet wastage of the public time and money. When the complainant and his daughter are not likely to support the allegations of the prosecution with regard to alleged kidnapping/abduction, in these circumstances a vital exercise cannot be allowed on the part of the prosecution with regard to the prosecution of the petitioner and his companion under Section 363/366 IPC.

The allegations of the prosecution are further that when the police was informed about the alleged kidnapping, the police party in order to rescue the girl chased the car and in that process the driver of the car hit the vehicle against a tree and further he by rash and negligent driving tried to endanger the safety of the persons. In these circumstances, the offence under Sections 279 and 427 IPC cannot be quashed.

Resultantly, this petition is partly allowed. The F.I.R. No. 246 dated 6.10.1998 registered in Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda is partly quashed so far as the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC are concerned and directions are given to the police not to prosecute the petitioner and his companion so far as these two offences are concerned. The State will be at liberty to put the challan under Sections 279 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioner and his companion Raghav Awasthy.

With above observations the present petition stands disposed of.