Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1537 (PNJ)

Pardeep v. State of Haryana

2013-11-22

Sabina

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Vide this order, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 379 Dated 16.8.2012 under Section 354, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, District Rohtak. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as petitioners are concerned, challan had been presented against them qua offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. In fact, no offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioners. As per the FIR itself, petitioners had allegedly committed the offence in the year 2006. Thereafter, the complainant had lived with accused Parveen Kumar. FIR in question was lodged in the year 2012. Hence, criminal proceedings against the petitioners were liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand have opposed the petition and have submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each other, had committed the offence in question. Since it was a continuing offence, petitioners were also liable to face the trial. Learned State counsel has submitted that after thorough investigation of the case, challan had been presented in this case. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that in the year 2006, complainant Parveen Kumari was residing in Red Cross Working Women Hostel and was pursuing her studies. Parveen Kumar followed her in those days and asked her to develop friendship with him. Complainant refused on many occasions but he continued following her. On one day, she developed friendship with Parveen Kumar and they remained in touch for 2/3 months. Parveen Kumar invited the complainant on 25.7.2006 to attend his birthday party in his quarter in the medical college. Friends of Parveen Kumar also joined him and starting doing some indecent activities with her. When the complainant walked out of the quarter, Parveen Kumar and his friends came to her in a car and felt sorry and insisted that she should sit in the car as it had gone dark and offered her dinner. Complainant sat in the car. Then Parveen Kumar took the car towards Sitara Garden, Asthal Bohar road. When the complainant objected, then he started misbehaving with her and removed her clothes. The car was stopped and complainant was left naked. Complainant sat in the car. Then Parveen Kumar took the car towards Sitara Garden, Asthal Bohar road. When the complainant objected, then he started misbehaving with her and removed her clothes. The car was stopped and complainant was left naked. After two-three hours, complainant kept roaming around to save herself and she was helped by some unknown person and was given clothes. After 2-3 days, Parveen again felt sorry and again came in contact with the complainant. In the year 2007, Parveen by making her his wife got her a house on rent in Tilak Nagar. Parveen took her to various placed including Vaishno Devi Mandir and accepted her as his wife. In the meantime, family members of the complainant came to know about her relationship with Parveen and they became angry with her and stopped talking to her. She developed physical relations with Parveen and on two occasions, she became pregnant but the pregnancy was got aborted. Thereafter she was kept as his wife by Parveen in Ram Gopal Colony in a rented house. Parveen, however, did not visit her for 15 days and his phone was also switched off. Thereafter, Parveen again told the complainant that he had arranged for a party in his house and took her in a car. Parveen took the mobile phone from the complainant and gave slaps to her and told her by threatening her with the help of a pistol that on that day he was to get married and in case she did anything wrong, he would kill her. Complainant lost her mental balance and after the marriage, returned back to Rohtak. Parveen did not disclose his relationship with the complainant to anybody. Hence, the complaint was filed. 5. Thus, a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the complainant was friendly with Parveen. Complainant had gone to attend the birthday party of Parveen where he behaved indecently with her along with his friends. In the FIR, names of the said friends are not mentioned. The said occurrence took place in July 2006. Thereafter, complainant continued residing with Parveen and developed physical relations with him. It appears that the FIR in question was lodged after relations between the complainant and Parveen turned sour. In the FIR, names of the said friends are not mentioned. The said occurrence took place in July 2006. Thereafter, complainant continued residing with Parveen and developed physical relations with him. It appears that the FIR in question was lodged after relations between the complainant and Parveen turned sour. Since the petitioners are not named in the FIR and further, no complaint was made by the complainant qua the incident which had taken place in July 2006, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners after about six years would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Further, once the complainant had started residing with Parveen, it is evident that the incident which had taken place in July 2006, if any, had been condoned by her. It appears that the main grievance of the complainant is against Parveen Kumar. In this factual background, criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 379 Dated 16.8.2012 under Section 354, 376, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed.