STATE vs KULDEEP

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 03rd February, 2026 Pronounced on: 25th March, 2026 + CRL.A. 264/2021 STATE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv. Insp. Sandeep Kumar, SI Dinesh Kumar, PS Nand Nagri. versus KULDEEP .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Ms. Pallavi Sharma Kansal, Mr. Pratham Malik, Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Advs. along with accused in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. State takes exception to the judgment dated 20th July, 2019, whereby, respondent Kuldeep has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per charge sheet, are that on 23rd January, 2013, father of the prosecutrix ‘P’ (name withheld), came at Police Station Nand Nagri and lodged a complaint that his daughter has been lured away by some unknown person. He stated in such complaint that he is a driver and had gone to Gauhati with his truck and upon coming back, he was informed by his wife that on 10th CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 1 of 16 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:25.03.2026 17:57 January, 2013, she left for work at 11.00 am, and in the evening when she returned back, she found the prosecutrix missing from the house. His wife made efforts to search her at her relatives places but could not find any clue. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. 3. During investigation, the photograph of the prosecutrix was uploaded on Zip-net, wireless message was flashed and ‘Hue & Cry’ notice was published. In order to trace the prosecutrix, the mobile number, from which the prosecutrix had made call at her home, was