Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-13333 of 2011 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13333 of 2011
Date of Decision: 26.7.2012.
Kamaldeep Singh ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.S.Uppal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 52 dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P-2), under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix had been allured by the petitioner on 28.1.2011 on the promise that he would perform marriage with her. Thereafter, the petitioner took her to Delhi and kept her in a room which had been taken on rent by the petitioner with the help of his friend. The petitioner had physical relations with the prosecutrix from 28.1.2011 to 4.2.2011 by making the prosecutrix believed that he would marry her. Thereafter, on 5.2.2011, prosecutrix was brought to Chandigarh by the petitioner and on 6.2.2011 the Crl. Misc. No. M-13333 of 2011 -2 - petitioner and prosecutrix got married at Guga Marri Mandir as per Hindu rites. Thereafter, the petitioner had physical relations with the prosecutrix from 6.2.2011 to 13.2.2011 by treating her as his wife.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying Crl. Misc. No. M-13333 of 2011 -3 - the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of Crl. Misc. No. M-13333 of 2011 -4 - aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." A perusal of the FIR itself does not reveal the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. As per the prosecutrix herself, she had got married with the petitioner on 6.2.2011. Since the petitioner had got married with the prosecutrix then the ingredients qua commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC are not made out. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was a major at the time of her marriage. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 52 dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P-2), under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, District Gurdaspur Crl. Misc. No. M-13333 of 2011 -5 - and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 26, 2012 Gurpreet