Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1246 (PNJ)

Yogesh Handa v. State of Punjab

2013-09-17

Naresh Kumar Sanghi

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, Yogesh Handa, son of Vinod Handa, for quashing of FIR No. 225, dated 22.10.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Chhehrretta, Amritsar City, District Amritsar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. 2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix (name concealed), daughter of Late Balkar Singh, resident of Chhehrretta, aged about 21 years, wherein she alleged that she was a student of Elementary Teachers Training Course and was taking coaching from the Punjab College, Ranjitpura, Putlighar, Amritsar, where the petitioner, Yogesh Handa, had also enrolled himself for coaching classes. Both of them developed intimacy with each other and their meetings turned into love affairs. The mother of the prosecutrix agreed to the proposal of marriage of both of them, but the parents and other family members of the petitioner did not agree on account of their different castes. On 20.10.2012, the petitioner met the prosecutrix and told her that in spite of the denial by his parents for the marriage, both of them would solemnize their marriage. On the same day, at about 7.00 p.m., the prosecutrix along with the petitioner went to Darbar Sahib and thereafter to a room in a hotel. In the night, the petitioner had committed rape on the prosecutrix. In the morning, the petitioner threatened her not to talk to anyone about the said incident otherwise he would kill her and her mother. On the next day, both of them remained together and in the evening, at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner left the prosecutrix at Chhehrretta and thereafter she went to her house and disclosed everything to her mother, Narinder Kaur. 3. On the basis of the above statement, the impugned FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2012. After investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Since the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC, was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the latter Court. During the pendency of the trial, the better sense prevailed and on 17.1.2013 the prosecutrix effected a compromise (Annexure P-2) with the petitioner at Amritsar. Since the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC, was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the latter Court. During the pendency of the trial, the better sense prevailed and on 17.1.2013 the prosecutrix effected a compromise (Annexure P-2) with the petitioner at Amritsar. It has been mentioned in the compromise deed that the petitioner would solemnize his marriage with the prosecutrix. 4. On the basis of the said compromise, the present petition was filed. Notice of motion was issued. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition, bearing CRM-M-6019-2013, for grant of bail on the basis of the compromise so that he might solemnize the marriage with the prosecutrix. Vide an order dated 14.3.2013, the Co-ordinate Bench admitted the petitioner to interim temporary bail on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2) with the direction that the petitioner would perform marriage with the prosecutrix. The parties submitted that the marriage would also be registered as per the provisions of law and the matter was adjourned to 13.8.2013. 5. On the adjourned date, the marriage certificate was produced and, therefore, the interim bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute. 6. Respondent No. 1-State and respondent No. 2- prosecutrix have filed their respective replies. 7. Respondent No. 1-State had opposed the quashing of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, on the premise that the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) had already been submitted before the learned Court below and even the charges were framed. 8. Respondent No. 2-prosecutrix had admitted the factum of the compromise and solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 11.4.2013 at Gurudwara Kalgidhar, Amritsar. Along with the reply, she has also placed on record copies of the marriage certificates, dated 11.4.2013 and 16.5.2013 (Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/2), issued by the Gurudwara authorities and Registrar of Marriage, Tehsil Amritsar-II, respectively. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that in view of the fact that respondent No. 2-complainant/prosecutrix has solemnized her marriage with the petitioner, therefore, she has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of the marriage certificates (Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/2). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of the marriage certificates (Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/2). In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Court on its own motion (Lajja Devi) v. State, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4367 (Delhi) (FB) : 2013(1) Marriage L.J. 196 (Delhi) (FB)] : 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 821. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. 12. It is the conceded case of the parties that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were taking coaching of Elementary Teachers Training Course at Amritsar and both of them developed intimacy and decided to perform their marriage, but the parents of the petitioner did not agree to the said proposal, therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized at that point of time. The petitioner had a sex with the prosecutrix without her consent on 20.10.2012 at Amritsar, therefore, she lodged the impugned FIR. During the pendency of the trial, both the private parties sorted out their dispute and decided to solemnize their marriage. The petitioner was granted ad-interim bail by this Court, at his request, for performing the marriage with the prosecutrix. The petitioner solemnized his marriage with the prosecutrix vide marriage certificates (Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/2). Learned counsel for the private parties are ad idem that after solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner and the prosecutrix are happily residing together at Amritsar. Even the parents of the petitioner had also joined the said marriage. 13. Though the learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of prayer sought for by the petitioner and respondent No. 2-complainant/prosecutrix, on the premise that the chargesheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been filed, but the fact that the petitioner has solemnized the marriage with the prosecutrix and is happily residing with her, therefore, continuation of the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefore, would be sheer abuse of the process of law. While discussing the facts of this case, this Court is conscious of the fact that the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC, is very serious, but the seriousness has to be adjudged keeping in view the facts of each case. While discussing the facts of this case, this Court is conscious of the fact that the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC, is very serious, but the seriousness has to be adjudged keeping in view the facts of each case. The petitioner as well as the prosecutrix, concededly are above the age of 21 years and they have buried their all grievances and after effecting the compromise, have solemnized their marriage. Therefore, there would be no use to allow the continuation of the proceedings before the learned Court below. The chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioner are bleak. 14. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the private parties that the statement of the prosecutrix has not been recorded before the learned Trial Court so far, therefore, continuation of the proceedings would lead her to make a false statement before the learned Court below, in favour of her husband, i.e. the petitioner. 15. In Lajja Devi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Full Bench of the Delhi High Court had held that if the girl was more than 16 years of age and she made a statement that she went with the accused with her consent and free will, then the Court will be within its power to quash the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 363 or 376, IPC. 16. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the pendency of the impugned FIR and continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would be sheer abuse of the process of law and, as such, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 225, dated 22.10.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Chhehrretta, Amritsar City, District Amritsar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------