Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 264 (JK)

Sunil Kumar v. State of J&K

2018-05-05

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. By invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr. P. C. quashing is sought of FIR No. 142/2015 dated 05.10.2015 of Police Station, Poonch under sections 366/109 RPC registered against the petitioner and two others. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The impugned FIR has been registered on a report lodged by one Shamsher Gulzar on 05.10.2015. It was alleged by him that his wife (hereinafter to be referred as the prosecutrix) was earlier abducted by one Rinku Sharma S/O Roshan Lal on 04.09.2015. On a report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix case was registered with Police Station, Poonch and the police recovered his wife. However, in the night intervening October 2 and 3, 2015 his wife was abducted by three persons, namely, Sunil Kumar, herein petitioner, Jai Dev and Roshan Lal. Impugned FIR, thus, came to be registered in regard to the incident of abduction alleged to have taken place in the night intervening October 2 and 3, 2015. 5. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix, who was major at the relevant time and Rinku Kumar, the brother of the petitioner, were in love and have tied nuptial knot on 07.09.2015. On the report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix FIR No. 126/2015 was registered by the police at Police Station, Poonch. During investigation of that case police recovered the prosecutrix, who was produced before a Magistrate at Poonch and she was handed over to her parents. Brother of the petitioner was arrested by the police and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against him. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix, however, managed to flee from the clutches of her parents and she approached this Court in OWP No. 1440/2015. The impugned FIR No. 142/2015, however, came to be registered on a false and frivolous report lodged by Shamsher Gulzar with a false claim that the prosecutrix was married to him and that she was abducted by the petitioner and two others, one of whom, Roshan Lal, is the father of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner passed on a copy of the statement of the presecutrix, which was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. during pendency of OWP No. 1440/2015. This statement has been recorded by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner passed on a copy of the statement of the presecutrix, which was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. during pendency of OWP No. 1440/2015. This statement has been recorded by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. Learned counsel submitted that this statement was recorded on the direction of this Court. This fact is admitted by the learned Dy.AG appearing on behalf of the State. 7. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 13. 8. 2016 has stated inter alia that she was in love with Rinku Kumar and married to him on 04.09.2015 out of her free will. She had sent the marriage documents by post to her parents. On 16th or 17th of September, 2015 when she and her husband, Rinku Kumar, had gone to Tis Hazari Court at Delhi and were sitting in the chamber of their lawyer, they were apprehended by the police of Police Station, Poonch and were brought to the Police Station, Poonch, she was tortured and pressurized by the police to leave her husband. She was then handed over to her parents by the police on 20.09.2015. Her parents forcibly performed her nikah with her cousin Shamsher Gulzar and dispatched both of them to the house of her maternal uncle at Surankote. They remained there for 5/6 days and after that her brother took her back to his house. She was forcibly sent by her parents to the house of Gulzar, where she stayed for two days, she was pressurized by Gulzar and his father to make statement against Rinku Kumar and his brothers. She refused. She managed to escape from the house of her uncle, that is, father of the Gulzar on 30.09.2015. She stayed in a temple for a night. On the next day she boarded a bus for Jammu. From Jammu, she left for Delhi. She stated also that while performing her nikah with Gulzar, her parents deliberately recorded the date of marriage as in the year, 2014. She is residing in the house of her husband, Rinku Kumar as his wife. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Basotra, stated also that on the basis of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. (supra), this Court has quashed the FIR No. 126/2015 and the proceedings therein. She is residing in the house of her husband, Rinku Kumar as his wife. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Basotra, stated also that on the basis of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. (supra), this Court has quashed the FIR No. 126/2015 and the proceedings therein. Recording of aforementioned statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and quashing of FIR 126/2015 is not denied by learned Dy.AG. 9. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164-A Cr. PC would make it clear that she had herself left the house of her uncle on 30. 9. 2015 as, according to the her, her nikah was forcibly performed with his son and that she is now living with her husband, Rinku Sharma. It is not denied that the prosecutrix is a grown up person. Her statement belies the allegation of abduction leveled by the informant, Shamsher Gulzar. Registration of FIR on his report and investigation pursuant thereto, therefore, is a sheer misuse of process of law as according to the statement of the prosecutrix the allegation of abduction is belied. 10. For aforementioned, a good case for showing indulgence by this Court is made out and therefore, the impugned FIR No. 142/2015 is quashed. Disposed of.