Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1633 (RAJ)

Suresh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-03

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
ORDER 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Anr. reported on 2021 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1099, which reads as under: "Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record. 3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, it is undisputed that both the accused (appellant) and respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists. 4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them. 5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant-who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed. 6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall be decided in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Pending application, if any stands disposed of." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the trial court's order dated 13.08.2021 wherein the learned trial court has dealt with the compromise in question. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that both the parties are of young age and in the interest of justice, the interference of this Court may be called for. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the trial court's order dated 13.08.2021 wherein the learned trial court has dealt with the compromise in question. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that both the parties are of young age and in the interest of justice, the interference of this Court may be called for. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the statement of Santosh Kanwar rendered under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, which reads as under :- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the complete narration in statements under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. leave aside any offence, there is no allegation of rape or any kind of sexual assault at all. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ].In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2021 of the learned court below and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) and the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bhartiya's case (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the above, the present misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged of the offence under Section 363 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act as well, in relation to Criminal Case No. 16/2019 pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) Rajsamand. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.