Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 648 (PNJ)

Suman v. State Of Haryana

2009-04-15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2009
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Present petition has been filed by Suman and her husband Avtar Singh seeking quashing of FIR No. 77 dated 27.5.2008 registered at Police Station City Charkhi Dadri, under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 IPC. 2. It is stated that Avtar Singh is facing trial in case arising out of FIR No. 77 dated 27.5.2008 registered at Police Station City Charkhi Dadri, under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 IPC. Petitioner No."1 Suman, who is present in the Court, has stated that she herself had accompanied Avtar Singh and had performed marriage. They have relied upon Certificate of Marriage (Annexure P2) issued by Pracheen Gugga Marhi Ram Krishan Mandif, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. Petitioners have further relied upon order passed by this Court on 5.6.2008 (Annexure P3) wherein it was noticed that the petitioners being major have solemnized marriage against the wishes of their parents. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Suman recorded before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has stated her age as 19 years and submitted that she had performed marriage with her own sweet will with Avtar Singh., Counsel also relied Upon Annexure P5 where radiological age of Suman was determined to be above, 19 years and below 20 years. It is further submitted that Suman is pregnant. Therefore, continuation of trial will not serve any useful purpose as no offence under Sections 376, 363 and 366 IPC is made out. 3. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy, Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State has stated that in the present case charges have been framed against petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sections 363,366, 376 & 506 IPC and four witnesses have been examined: It has been further submitted that radiological age of petitioner No. 1 Suman is to be proved before the trial Court. 4. Petitioners Suman and Avtar Singh, in their capacity as wife and husband, have prayed that FIR be quashed. 5. Mr. Mor has stated feat admittedly Suman was more than 16 years of age, therefore, the offence under Section 376 IPC may not be made out but technically offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC is made out as Suman was enticed from.the lawful guardianship of her parents by petitioner No. 2. 5. Mr. Mor has stated feat admittedly Suman was more than 16 years of age, therefore, the offence under Section 376 IPC may not be made out but technically offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC is made out as Suman was enticed from.the lawful guardianship of her parents by petitioner No. 2. It has been further submitted that radiological test (Annexure P5) is to be proved during the course of trial and once charge has been framed, FIR has to end in acquittal or conviction. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that even if technically offence is made out then also Courts visit leniently upon the accused. Counsel for the petitioners further stated that since petitioner No.1is pregnant and in case petitioner No.2 is convicted, family life ofpetitionerNo.1 will be ruined who had performed marriage with petitioner No. 2 according to her own accord. 7. Mr. Morhas stated that petitioner No. 1 Suman has been cited as prosecution witness. 8. Trial Court is directed to examine petitioner No. 1 Suman as first witness on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the doctor, who had conducted radiological examination, be examined t, determine the age. Once the testimony of petitioner No. 1 Suman and Radiologist is recorded, the Court may determine the age of petitioner No. 1 Suman and proceed in accordance with law 9. With these observations, the present petition is disposed off.