Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 113 (PAT)

Sidhharth Rishabdev Satyam v. State of Bihar

2024-01-23

SATYAVRAT VERMA

body2024
Satyavrat Verma, J. – Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge- POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lakhisarai whereby application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge in connection with Special Case No. 10 of 2019 arising out of Medni P.S. Case No. 66 of 2018 has been rejected. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially Medni P.S. Case No. 66 of 2018 was instituted under Sections 366(A), 313, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code but after investigation the Investigating Officer of the case filed charge-sheet under Sections 376, 420, 313, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POSCO Act and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the opposite party no. 2 herein had not instituted the case alleging that on pretext of marriage she was raped rather the sum and substance of the allegation was that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 entered into physical relation and the said relationship was established on the ground that the petitioner had assured her of marriage. It is also alleged that thereafter they performed Court marriage on 10.06.2017 at Lakhisarai Court but thereafter matrimonial dispute arose and the petitioner even got her aborted twice and even the parents of the petitioner used to threaten her. Learned Senior Counsel thus submits that what is in dispute rather stands admitted is that petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 got married and the opposite party no. 2 is a major. It is further submitted that the FIR came to be instituted four years after the occurrence which amply demonstrates that the relationship was consensual and the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 married even. It is next submitted that perhaps explains why initially when the FIR was instituted it was not instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 married even. It is next submitted that perhaps explains why initially when the FIR was instituted it was not instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 asserts and submits that he has instruction to make submissions that the opposite party no. 2 is a major and she does not want to pursue the case. It is further submitted that it is not a case of rape and the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 are leading a happy conjugal life. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 fairly submits that even the opposite party no. 2 had not instituted the aforesaid Medni P.S. Case No. 66 of 2018 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but for reasons best known the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with other sections as recorded hereinabove, thus, the learned counsel reiterates and submits that he has instruction of the opposite party no. 2 to make submissions that she does not want to pursue the case and she will have no objection in the event if the present quashing application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly submits that the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 had also moved this Court seeking quashing of the order of cognizance by filing Cr. Misc. No. 55074 of 2019. The said case was referred for mediation by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 26.06.2023 and in the mediation the matter was resolved. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge-POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lakhisarai whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge in connection with Special Case No. 10 of 2019 arising out of Medni P.S. Case No. 66 of 2018 has been rejected, is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present quashing application is allowed.