Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1044 (PNJ)

Vicky v. State of Haryana

2024-07-12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 128 dated 15.06.2018, registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1866 and (Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 added later on) (for short “POCSO Act”), at Police Station Sadar Narwana, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of affidavit (compromise) dated 05.03.2021, Annexure P-6. 2. The following order was passed on 16.11.2021: “CRM-38332-2021 Prayer made in the application is for placing on record the statement of PW-9-victim-Nikita as Annexure P-9. Application is allowed. Statement of PW-9-victim-Nikita is taken on record as Annexure P-9. CRM-M-15677-2021 (O&M) Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 128 dated 15.06.2018, registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1866 and (Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), at Police Station Sadar Narwana, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of affidavit (compromise) dated 05.03.2021, Annexure P-6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR (Annexure P-1) has been registered on the statement of Rajinder Singh, uncle of the victim, on the allegation that his niece has been enticed by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage. Counsel urges that on perusal of the statements of victim, Annexures P-2 and P-3, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. respectively shows that victim had left her home and accompanied the petitioner of her own volition. Counsel has placed reliance upon victim’s testimony, Annexure P-9, to submit that while appearing in the witness box, she has reiterated that she had accompanied the petitioner on her own free will as she was in love with him and wanted to marry him and a false case has been registered against the petitioner by her uncle. A specific reference has been made by the counsel to victim’s deposition, Annexure P-9, to submit that she has categorically stated that petitioner never committed penetrative sexual assault upon her in the year 2018. A specific reference has been made by the counsel to victim’s deposition, Annexure P-9, to submit that she has categorically stated that petitioner never committed penetrative sexual assault upon her in the year 2018. Counsel submits that petitioner has further deposed that she solemnized the marriage with petitioner on 15.02.2021 after attaining the age of majority and now she is on the family way and her expected date of delivery is 26.11.2021. Counsel has referred to para 15 of the petition to submit that petitioner has not been declared as proclaimed offender in any case/FIR. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State-respondent No. 1. Ms. Neha Dewan, Advocate has put in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of victim-respondent No. 2. She has affirmed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. The parties and Investigating Officer are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 14.02.2022 or on any subsequent date to be fixed by the Court for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall submit the report on or before the next date of hearing specifying the following: 1. the number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O. in the case; 2. the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise; 3. the stage of trial/proceedings; 4. if the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties; 5. whether any other criminal case is pending against the accused. Report of the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court be awaited for 09.05.2022.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and complainant-prosecutrix have performed love marriage and they have been blessed with a son from the wedlock and the FIR (supra) has been registered against the petitioner as the family of the complainant-prosecutrix were opposed to their relationship. Learned counsel places reliance upon the following: S. No. Case Title Court 1. K. Dhandapani v. The State, 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 987 Hon’ble Supreme Court 2. Ananda D.V. v. State and others, 2021 (OLR) 1074 3. Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2022 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 497 4. Learned counsel places reliance upon the following: S. No. Case Title Court 1. K. Dhandapani v. The State, 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 987 Hon’ble Supreme Court 2. Ananda D.V. v. State and others, 2021 (OLR) 1074 3. Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2022 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 497 4. Jatin Aggarwal v. State of Telangana and others 2022 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 603 5. Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P. and others MANU/HP/2314/2013 Himachal Pradesh High Court (DB) 6. Narinder Kaur @ Ninder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-41204-2020 Punjab and Haryana 7. Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashra and others, 2023 Cri. L.J. 3633 Bombay High Court 8. Sabari v. Inspector of Police, Belukurichi Police Station and others, 2019 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452 Madras High Court 9. Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State and others, 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 20 Delhi High Court (DB) 10. Skhemborland Suting and others v. State of Meghalaya and others, MANU/MG/0054/2022 Meghalaya High Court 11. Tarun Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan and others, MANU/RH/16181/2022 Rajasthan High Court 12. Kundan and another v. State and others, Crl. M.C. 27/2022 Delhi High Court 13. Devendranath v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others, CRM-M-23281-2023 Punjab and Haryana High Court 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.11.2021, a report has been received from the concerned jurisdictional Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine and arrived at without any pressure or coercion from anyone. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that respondent No. 2 had solemnized marriage with petitioner on 15.02.2021. The marriage between two persons who do not satisfy the age criterion, as laid down by Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not become void ab inito. Such a marriage would be voidable at the instance of the minor party. Therefore, in absence of such declaration in view of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the marriage subsists and the husband can be the legal guardian of his minor wife, as reaffirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mamta v. Rohan Verma. Such a marriage would be voidable at the instance of the minor party. Therefore, in absence of such declaration in view of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the marriage subsists and the husband can be the legal guardian of his minor wife, as reaffirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mamta v. Rohan Verma. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Court on its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) vs. State, 2012 (4) CCR 72 has held that if the girl is more than 16 years of age and makes a statement to the effect that she left of her own volition and records a statement indicating that the consent was without any force, coercion or undue influence, the Court will be within its power to accept the statement and quash proceedings under Sections 363 or 366-A of the IPC. It has been further held that the FIR can be quashed if after attaining the age of majority, she affirms and reiterates her consent. 6. Respondent No. 2 has now attained the age of majority and wants to continue with her matrimonial life with the petitioner and are residing happily with each other. If the criminal proceedings against the petitioner allowed to continue, not only will it lead to unnecessary incarceration of the petitioner but also leave respondent no. 2 bereft of financial and emotional support. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings as the chances of conviction are abysmal. The continuance of the present proceedings in the present case would be nothing but wastage of valuable judicial time, especially, when the Courts are already over-burdened. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 128 dated 15.06.2018, registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1866 (Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 added later on) (for short “POCSO Act”), at Police Station Sadar Narwana, Annexure P-1 along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.