CRMMO/12/2017 of SAYYAM KHURANA Vs STATE OF HP on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 12 of 2017Decided on : 31[st]December,2018

____________________________________________________________

Sayyam Khurana

Versus

……Petitioner

State of H.P. & another…..Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?_____

For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt,Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr.

ShivPalManhansAdditional Advocate GeneralwithMr.R.P.SinghandMr.R.R.Rahi, Deputy AdvocateGeneral, for respondent No.1and none for respondentNo.2.withMr.R.P.SinghandMr.R.R.Rahi, Deputy AdvocateGeneral, for respondent No.1and none for respondentNo.2.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

Present petition has been filed for quashing theproceedings in case No. 2 of 2014 titled State of H.P. vs.Sayyam Khurana pending before learned PrincipalMagistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kangra at Dharamshalaand in case No. SC No. 9-B/VII/14 titled as State of H.P. vs.Sayyam Khurana pending before learned Special Judge,Kangra at Dharamshala against FIR No. 35/2013 dated8.3.2013 registered at P.S. Baijnath under Sections 292, 384, 201, 506, 354 (c) of Indian Penal Code and 66-E, 67-A,B of IT Act and Section 14(1) of the Protection of Childrenfrom Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and also for quashing of FIRon the ground that from the Forensic Science Laboratoryreport, it is clear that images/photographs of the victim,alleged to have been taken by the petitioner through mobilephone handed over by the petitioner to the police duringinvestigation, have not been found to be taken with the saidinstrument.

2 During hearing of the case, it was also pointedout by learned counsel for petitioner that for one offence,alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, FIR No.35 of 2013 has been registered against him in P.S. Baijnath,however, the petitioner has been subjected to two trials i.e.one before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kangra atDharamshala and another before the Special Judge, Kangraat Dharamshala for commission of one and same offence.

3 So far as the first plea of petitioner isconcerned, evaluation of particular piece of evidence is tobe considered by the concerned Court during trial beforeitself and it is not a proper stage to evaluate the evidenceof prosecution by this Court, relied upon by it during trial which is still pending. Therefore, proceedings/FIR cannot bequashed, as pleaded by the petitioner on this ground.

4The notice of accusation put to the petitioner bythe Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board has also beenplaced on record along with the copy of FIR. Record oflearned Special Judge has also been summoned. Perusal ofcharge framed against the petitioner therein reveals thatpetitioner has been subjected to the trial before learnedSpecial Judge for circulation of indecent nude photographsof victim on 6.3.2013, whereas from the notice ofaccusation put to him by Juvenile Justice Board, reveals thathe has been subjected to proceedings before the said Boardfor preparing and capturing the nude and indecent materiali.e. photographs of prosecutrix through his mobile betweenDecember 2011 to 27[th] November, 2012.

5 Admittedly, date of birth of petitioner is28.11.1994 and he has attained the age of 18 years on28.11.2012. He has been subjected for proceedings beforethe Board for commission of offence during the periodDecember 2011 to 27[th] November, 2012 i.e. prior to hisattaining age of 18 years, whereas offence of circulation ofthose photographs has been alleged to have been committed on 6.3.2013 i.e. after his attaining of 18 yearsage.

6 In these aforesaid circumstances, I find noillegality or irregularity subjecting the petitioner to trialbefore two different Forums i.e. Juvenile Justice Board andCourt of learned Special Judge, as two distinct and differentoffences alleged to have been committed by petitioner atdifferent times there and for commission of offence beforeattaining the age of 18 years petitioner is liable to face theproceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board and forcommissioner of offence after attaining the age of 18years,he is liable to face trial before learned Special Judge. Partiesare directed to appear before learned Special Judge, Kangraat Dharamshala on 19[th] January, 2019 in case SC No. 9-B/VII/14 titled as State of H.P. vs. Sayyam Khurana.7 With aforesaid observations, petition isdismissed as also the pending miscellaneous application(s),if any. Record be sent back forthwith.

December 31, 2018 (ms)

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge