Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 250 (MEG)

Rajesh Bir v. State of Meghalaya

2022-09-16

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed jointly by the petitioners herein with a prayer to set aside and quash the proceedings in Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong. 2. Heard Mr. S. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 were in a love relationship which started in the year 2014 when the petitioner No. 2 was then a minor, aged about 15 years. On 17.10.2014 the petitioner No. 2 went to school as usual and returned home at 4.00 pm. However, her mother came to know that she did not attend school that day and when she was confronted, the petitioner No. 2 admitted that she was picked up by the petitioner No. 1 in a private vehicle and the whole day she was with him at a guest house, whose location is not known to her. 3. Based on this information, the mother of the petitioner No. 2 who is also the petitioner No. 3 herein had lodged the FIR before the In-charge, Pasture Beat House, Shillong on 17.10.2014 upon which Sadar P.S Case No. 359(10) of 2014 under Section 365 IPC was registered. The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 4 who was the driver of the vehicle involved were arrested in this connection. 4. On the matter being investigated, the Investigating Officer (I/O) then filed the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C on 19.03.2015 with a finding that a prima facie case under Sections 366/34 IPC read with Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act have been found well established against the accused persons Rajesh Bir, the petitioner No. 1 herein and a case under Sections 366/109/34 IPC read with 4/6 POCSO Act was also found well established against Dipon Roy, the petitioner No. 4 herein. 5. The sections of law being cognizable and triable by the Special Court (POCSO), a formal case was registered as Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015 and trial commence with the framing of charge against the accused persons. In due course, the Court has also examined a number of prosecution witnesses, ten in all and has exhibited a number of documents as part of the evidence. 6. In due course, the Court has also examined a number of prosecution witnesses, ten in all and has exhibited a number of documents as part of the evidence. 6. It is at this stage that the petitioners have approached this Court with this instant application and the prayer made as aforesaid. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that records will show that the petitioner No. 2 who is the alleged victim, in her statement under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been consistent to say that she is in a love relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and that she does not want him to be prosecuted. In fact, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are now living together as husband and wife and they were formally married on 01.12.2017 at Mahadev Khola Dham Temple, Shillong. Annexure-V to this petition is the copy of the Marriage Certificate issued by the Priest/In-charge, Mahadev Khola Dham Temple. Out of this union, a child was also born to them on 03.10.2019 at Khowai District Hospital in the state of Tripura for which a birth certificate dated 11.03.2020 was issued by the Registrar (Birth & Death), Khowai District Hospital. Copy of the Birth Certificate is also annexed in this petition as Annexure-VI. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the union between the petitioner No. 1 and 2 and the fact that they are living together as husband and wife was with the consent of the family members including the petitioner No. 3 herein who is the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and who has filed the FIR. 9. In view of the fact that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living a happy married life with a child of their own, pendency and continued prosecution of the related case against the petitioner No. 1 would only bring hardship and disruption of the family life which would serve no purpose under the circumstances. It is therefore prayed that this Court in exercise of its inherent power may be pleased to bring closure to the case against the petitioner No. 1 and to set aside and quash the FIR dated 17.10.2014 and the consequent Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015. 10. It is therefore prayed that this Court in exercise of its inherent power may be pleased to bring closure to the case against the petitioner No. 1 and to set aside and quash the FIR dated 17.10.2014 and the consequent Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015. 10. As far as the case of the petitioner No. 4 is concerned, he is admittedly the driver of the vehicle used by the petitioner No. 1 on the said day of the incident and has nothing to do with the relationship between the petitioners No. 1 and 2 and could not have been charged with the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Indeed, if this Court allows the prayer for quashing of the proceedings, the petitioner No. 4 may also be accorded the same benefit. 11. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has submitted that the records of the case that is, Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015 has been produced before this Court and on perusal of the same, this Court may be pleased to pass such further and necessary orders. However, no strong opposition was made against this petition in the light of the decision made by this Court in some similarly situated matters where the benefit has been extended to the petitioner(s) where the related proceedings before the Court was quashed. 12. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on consideration of the submission made, particularly on behalf of the petitioners, the facts stated corresponds with those available on record and as such, need not be reiterated. 13. As was submitted, the petitioner No. 2 who is the focal point of the whole proceedings has categorically stated in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C that her relationship with the petitioner No. 1 is consensual and that she does not want the petitioner No. 1 to be prosecuted. Even in her deposition in Court as PW-1, she has repeated the same. 14. The petitioner No. 3 who is the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and who has filed the FIR, in her deposition before the Court as PW-2 has also stated that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are now living together as husband and wife and as such, she does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioner No. 1. This witness has also stated in her evidence that she has not made any allegation that her daughter (Petitioner No. 2) was raped by the petitioner No. 1. PW-3, Shri. Dilip Das who is the father of the petitioner No. 2 has also concurred that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are now living together as husband and wife at Tripura. 15. The other witnesses examined are mostly official witnesses including doctors who have examined the petitioner No. 2, but for the purpose of the present petition, their evidence may not be required to be considered. 16. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are now adults and are living together as husband and wife with a child of their own. Since there was no allegation of sexual assault, especially since the alleged victim girl who is the petitioner No. 2 herein has denied the same, therefore the charge under Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act may be difficult to be proved. Be that as it may, so as not to disrupt the unity of a family unit, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the proceedings are to be put to a stop at this stage. 17. In view of the above, this petition is found to be justified and prayer made thereof is also found acceptable by this Court. The petition is therefore accordingly allowed. 18. Consequently, the proceedings in Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015 is hereby set aside and quashed. 19. Petition disposed of. No costs. 20. Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court case records.