IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 29.01.2025 Parvinder Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P10) passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, SAS Nagar in the case titled as ‘State Vs. Nimmo Kaur and others’ bearing CIS No.SC/122/2020 in pursuance to FIR No.78 dated 22.08.2020, registered at Police Station City Kurali, under Sections 376, 506 & 120-B read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67-B of IT Act.

2. The facts in brief are that the abovesaid FIR was registered against accused Nimmo Kaur and one unknown person on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant alleging that her minor daughter, aged 14 years, informed her on 22.08.2020 that on 18.06.2020 her aunt (chachi) Nimmo Kaur had called her friend to their house at around 12.30 A.M the night. She gave a drink laced with some intoxicant to her and after drinking the same, she became unconscious and when she woke up after a while, she saw her clothes smeared with blood. When she asked her aunt (Nimmo)

about the same, she told her that she has prepared her video and that in case, the victim discloses the occurrence to anyone, then she would kill her. Thereafter her aunt-Nimmo by threatening her, took her to different hotels in Kharar/Mohali and got her physically assaulted/molested from the same person on various occasions against her wishes. Because of this, the victim was frightened. Accordingly, legal action was sought against Nimmo Kaur and the aforesaid unknown person. Since, the perusal of the aforesaid statement prima facie revealed the commission of offences under Section 376, 506 & 120B IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act and therefore, abovestated FIR was registered and investigation commenced.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned Special Court, SAS Nagar has erred while allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has failed to notice that earlier also, similar application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed for re-examination of the prosecutrix which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure P6) by passing a detailed and reasoned order which was further sustained by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure P7). Same was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court and was not interfered by Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing order (Annexure P8). He further submits that while disposing of the SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P8) had ordered that if the victim moves an application in an appropriate provision, seeking re-examination of herself, such an application can be considered by the Court concerned as per law. But the learned trial Court has failed to consider the same as per law as such fresh application was not maintainable, in view of the earlier orders passed by it and the findings given therein and the law relied upon is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has further been argued that the learned trial Court has also failed to notice that the facts & circumstances of the case remained the same and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to entertain and allow the application of the prosecutrix for her re-examination. 4. Per contra, the learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and while placing reliance upon the reply filed has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations leveled and there is no infirmity in the order that has been passed by the learned Family Court. It has also been stated that during the course of investigation, the spot of occurrence was inspected, site plan was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were reco