Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Sumitra Devi Vs. State of Haryana and anr

Sumitra Devi vs State of Haryana and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided May 05, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1139307

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sumitra Devi

Respondent

State of Haryana and anr

Excerpt

.....versus state of haryana and anr ..respondents coram:- hon'ble ms.justice anita chaudhry present: mr.j.p.sharma, advocate for the petitioner. ___ anita chaudhry, j. the petitioner is the complainant in fir no.64 dated 09.03.2014, registered initially under section 366 ipc at police station kanina. section 376 ipc was added lateron. she is aggrieved with order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the judicial magistrate ist class, mohindergarh by virtue of which the application filed by the investigating agency has been allowed and respondent no.2-sonu has been discharged. heard. the aforesaid fir was got registered by the petitioner against one parvinder on the allegations that he had enticed her married daughter aged about 24 years.during investigations, respondent no.2 was arrested for an offence under section 368 sharma jiten 2014.05.06 17:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crl. misc. no.m-15032 of 2014 2 ipc. the prosecutrix had made a statement under section 164 cr.p.c., after her recovery, to the magistrate, wherein she disclosed that she was raped by parvinder and it was sonu who took her to narnaul. during the investigation, it also came to light that respondent no.2 brought the prosecutrix and parvinder to the police. this led the investigating agency to file an application seeking discharge of respondent no.2. the prosecutrix had not attributed any allegation against sonu in her statement made to the magistrate. the court below on the basis of material placed before it, had discharged respondent no.2. there is no illegality or infirmity in the approach of the court below. the instant petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. however, whatever said hereinabove is without prejudice to the merits of the case. may 05, 2014 (anita chaudhry) jiten judge sharma jiten 2014.05.06 17:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh

Full Judgment

Crl.

Misc.

No.M-15032 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

No.M-15032 of 2014 Date of decision : 05.05.2014 Sumitra Devi .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and Anr ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

___ ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

The petitioner is the complainant in FIR No.64 dated 09.03.2014, registered initially under Section 366 IPC at Police Station Kanina.

Section 376 IPC was added lateron.

She is aggrieved with order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh by virtue of which the application filed by the investigating agency has been allowed and respondent No.2-Sonu has been discharged.

Heard.

The aforesaid FIR was got registered by the petitioner against one Parvinder on the allegations that he had enticed her married daughter aged about 24 yeaRs.During investigations, respondent no.2 was arrested for an offence under Section 368 Sharma Jiten 2014.05.06 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-15032 of 2014 2 IPC.

The prosecutrix had made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., after her recovery, to the Magistrate, wherein she disclosed that she was raped by Parvinder and it was Sonu who took her to Narnaul.

During the investigation, it also came to light that respondent no.2 brought the prosecutrix and Parvinder to the police.

This led the investigating agency to file an application seeking discharge of respondent no.2.

The prosecutrix had not attributed any allegation against Sonu in her statement made to the Magistrate.

The Court below on the basis of material placed before it, had discharged respondent no.2.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the approach of the Court below.

The instant petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.

However, whatever said hereinabove is without prejudice to the merits of the case.

May 05, 2014 (ANITA CHAUDHRY) Jiten JUDGE Sharma Jiten 2014.05.06 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Sumitra Devi vs State of Haryana and anr Same Subject Criminal
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales