Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 810 (RAJ)

Satvinder Pal Kaur @ Sonia v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in Sessions Case No. 15/09 whereby the learned trial Judge discharged the respondent Harvinder Singh from the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant filed a complaint against the respondent Harvinder Singh and two others in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur on 18.5.2009 stating interalia that she was married to one Kanwaljit Singh of Padampur. She was harassed by her in-laws on which she filed a case under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. against the husband and his relatives, which was still pending in the court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Padampur. She also alleged that a divorce petition was also filed by her husband Kanwaljit Singh in the court of learned District Judge, Srikaranpur. The complainant was opposing the said divorce petition and wanted to settle back with Kanwaljit Singh. The case was going on at the stage of the evidence of the complainant. At that time, Harvinder Singh met the complainant and seduced her saying that he was deeply in love with her and was prepared to marry her. He further assured that his parents were also agreeable to the marriage. The complainant asked for some time to think over the matter. She instructed her lawyer to have the divorce proceedings prolonged. During this period, Harvinder Singh repeatedly persuaded the complainant for accepting the divorce and to marry him. 3. It was also alleged that Harvinder Singh approached the complainant's lawyer and requested him that the divorce proceedings going on between Kanwaljit Singh and the petitioner Satvinder should be finalised expeditiously so that he could marry the complainant. Thereafter, the divorce was finalised and the complainant agreed to the proposal of Harvinder Singh. A few days after the divorce was finalised, Harvinder Singh took the complainant to a temple and performed the formalities of marriage in the temple. She was assured that a formal marriage ceremony would also be solemnised soon after. Harvinder Singh further told the complainant that he was pursuing his proposed foreign visit and that the complainant would also be taken along. He also told the complainant that the proceedings for preparation of passport etc. were to be completed. She was assured that a formal marriage ceremony would also be solemnised soon after. Harvinder Singh further told the complainant that he was pursuing his proposed foreign visit and that the complainant would also be taken along. He also told the complainant that the proceedings for preparation of passport etc. were to be completed. Harvinder Singh told her that since they had married and as they were husband and wife, she should not stay at her father's house but rather should stay in the rented premises with him. The complainant thereafter took a rented house at Vijaynagar and started living separately from her parents. Harvinder Singh used to come to the rented house and frequently established physical relations with the complainant. Harvinder Singh continued the relations in this manner with the complainant for about 2 years. He also assured the complainant that she had no need to worry as they had already been betrothed in the temple and the formal wedding would be organised in the near future. 4. She further alleged that Harvinder Singh came to the complainant's room in the night of 24.3.2009 and had sexual relations with her. In the morning he told the complainant that his parents were not agreeable to their marriage and therefore, they should go to some other place and perform the formal marriage. On this, the complainant accompanied Harvinder Singh and went to some village at Tehsil Srikaranpur. She was kept in a house of somebody close to Harvinder Singh. Harvinder Singh used to establish physical relations with her every day at that place. 3-4 days thereafter, Harvinder Singh left her at Karanpur Bus stand and instructed her to go to an address at Vijaynagar. The complainant went to the address given to her by the accused. It was alleged that Harvinder Singh thereafter started avoiding the complainant and used to disconnect her telephone calls. The complainant had a talk with Havinder Singh's brother-in-law, who told her that as Harvinder Singh is not ready to keep her, she should come and stay with him as he was ready to keep her. On this, the complainant is alleged to have deplored Harvinder Singh's brother-in-law about the indecent proposal, which he had expressed to the complainant. The complainant also called Harvinder Singh's father but he denied to intervene. On this, the complainant is alleged to have deplored Harvinder Singh's brother-in-law about the indecent proposal, which he had expressed to the complainant. The complainant also called Harvinder Singh's father but he denied to intervene. The complainant allegedly made repeated requests to Harvinder Singh, his parents and his brother-in-law to formalize their relations but to no avail. Thereafter, she contacted her lawyer at Karanpur on which Harvinder Singh and his father came to the lawyer and assured him that they would execute a compromise in few days. She alleged that ultimately 10 days prior to the filing of the complaint, she was called by Harvinder Singh's father to Karanpur and was told that Harvinder Singh was not ready to keep her with him. 5. The complainant thus alleged that by establishing the physical relations under the false promise to marry, Harvinder Singh committed the offence of rape upon the complainant. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation where FIR No. 81/09 was registered and investigation commenced. The Police after completion of investigation filed a charge-sheet against Harvinder Singh in the court of the concerned Magistrate for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The case was committed for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur. 6. The learned trial Judge at the stage of framing of charges proceeded to discharge the accused from the offence under Section 376 IPC and toned down the matter and directed his trial for the offence under Section 417 of the I.P.C. Now the complainant petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision assailing the order of discharge. 7. Shri I.J.Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is direct plausible evidence on the record to show that the accused gave a false assurance of marriage to the complainant and thereafter induced her into establishing sexual relations. Thereafter, he resiled from the promise and ditched the complainant. He thus submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in discharging the respondent from the offences under Section 376 I.P.C. 8. Per contra, Shri M.K. Garg learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Harvinder Singh has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is the admitted case of the complainant that she married the petitioner in the temple and thereafter only the sexual relations were established between them. Per contra, Shri M.K. Garg learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Harvinder Singh has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is the admitted case of the complainant that she married the petitioner in the temple and thereafter only the sexual relations were established between them. He submits that the complainant was a married lady and was well versed with the consequences of the relations which she established with the accused. He submits that the admitted allegations of the prosecution do not constitute the necessary ingredients of the offence of rape as defined under Section 375 I.P.C. He thus contends that the well reasoned order of discharge passed by the trial court does not call for any interference in the instant revision. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 10. The undisputed facts as available on record can be enumerated herein; (i) the prosecutrix is a 27 years old lady, (ii) she has admitted that she was married with Kanwaljit Singh, (iii) she alleged that while she and Kanwaljit Singh were going through the process of divorce, the petitioner proposed to her to which she agreed, (iv) she has claimed in the complaint that she divorced Kanwaljit Singh, (v) no judgment/decree of divorce recorded between the prosecutrix and Kanwaljit Singh is available on record, (vi) in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has alleged that the divorce was finalised in February 2009, (vi) in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has alleged that the divorce was finalised in July 2008, (vii) she has admitted that she solemnized a marriage with the respondent in a temple. 11. It is thus the admitted case of the prosecution that the physical relations which were established between the complainant and the accused, were after the alleged marriage solemnized between the two at the temple. A marriage in the temple is a recognised form of marriage under the Hindu customs. The complainant's case that she lawfully divorced her husband is unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. The oral evidence in this regard is highly contradictory and no documentary evidence has been placed on record. 12. A marriage in the temple is a recognised form of marriage under the Hindu customs. The complainant's case that she lawfully divorced her husband is unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. The oral evidence in this regard is highly contradictory and no documentary evidence has been placed on record. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider factual scenario similar to the case at hand in the case of Prashant Bharati v. State of NCT of Delhi in SLP (Crl.) No. 1800/2009 decided on 23.1.2013. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering in detail the factual and legal matrix of the matter, proceeded to discharge the accused in case with almost similar facts. Thus, this court is of the opinion that ex-facie, the case as set up by the complainant that the accused induced her under a false promise of marriage and thereafter fradulently established physical relations with her is without any basis. The trial Court has thus committed no error, illegality or perversity in discharging the respondent from the offences. Rather this Court is of the opinion that the charge, which has been framed against the respondent under Section 417 I.P.C. is also baseless and grossly illegal. 13. Resultantly, the revision filed by the complainant petitioner is dismissed. At the same time, exercising the suomoto powers of revision, the direction issued by the learned trial Court for framing charge against the respondent Harvinder Singh for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. is also quashed.Record be sent back forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******