Skip to content


Manjeet Gupta W/O Deepak Gupta, Vs. State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Ministry of Home and Iqbal Singh Bhullar S/O Lal Singh Bhullar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Uttaranchal High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Manjeet Gupta W/O Deepak Gupta, ;deepak Gupta S/O Kailash Chandra Gupta, ;dinesh Gupta S/O Sri Shish

Respondent

State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Ministry of Home and Iqbal Singh Bhullar S/O Lal Singh Bhulla

Disposition

Petition allowed

Cases Referred

State v. Deepak Gupta and Ors.

Excerpt:


.....state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and..........daughter had married against his wishes with deepak gupta, and he would not keep any concern with his daughter. in said letter it is also admitted by the complainant that petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are married in july 2008, against wishes of their parents.5. in the above circumstances, in view of the principle of law laid down in lata singh v. state of u.p. : (2006) 5 supreme court cases 475, this court is of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. accordingly, the petition under section 482 of cr.p.c. is allowed. the proceedings of criminal case no. 847 of 2009, state v. deepak gupta and ors., relating to offences punishable under section 366, 376, 417, 342, 120-b of i.p.c., pending in the court of judicial magistate, khatima, district udham singh nagar, are hereby quashed.

Judgment:


Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/State.

2. Petitioner No. 1 Manjeet Gupta is present in person before this Court, and she was heard in person.

3. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 847 of 2009; State v. Deepak Gupta and Ors., relating to offences punishable under Section 366, 376, 417, 342, 120-B of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the petitioner No. 1 (daughter of respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh Bhullar/complainant) was in love with petitioner No. 2 Deepak Gupta. It is further pleaded that the two got married with each other on 27th of July 2008. Copy of certificate of marriage is filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. It is further pleaded that petitioner No. 1 was major on the date of marriage, as her date of birth is 02.08.1985. In support of said plea copy of the High School marksheet is filed as Annexure-1 to the petition. The girl (petitioner No. 1) who is present in person before this Court, on enquiry affirmed that she is married to petitioner No. 2 Deepak Gupta. She further states that she had gone with him on her own volition. She is major. Apart from this, copy of application dated 19.09.2008, submitted by complainant Iqbal Singh Bhullar (respondent No. 2), Annexure -12 to the petition, shows that he himself has written a letter to the District Magistrate stating that his daughter had married against his wishes with Deepak Gupta, and he would not keep any concern with his daughter. In said letter it is also admitted by the complainant that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are married in July 2008, against wishes of their parents.

5. In the above circumstances, in view of the principle of law laid down in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. : (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 475, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case No. 847 of 2009, State v. Deepak Gupta and Ors., relating to offences punishable under Section 366, 376, 417, 342, 120-B of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //