Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Manisha Yadav vs State Of Raj And Ors on 16 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 608/2018
Smt. Manisha Yadav W/o Shri Sumit Surolia D/o Shri Balijeet
Yadav, Aged About 18 Years, R/o 1001, Alwar Bypass Road,
Cosmos Society, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhiwadi, District
Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Smt. Mukesh Devi W/o Shri Baljeet Yadav, R/o G-102,
Ashiana Angan, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 489/2018 Sumit Surolia S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o A-84, Vijay Vihar Phase-2, Rohini Sector 4, North West Delhi, Permanent R/o House Number 380, Village Satnali, Tehsil Mahendergarh, Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhiwadi, Distt.
Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Mukesh Devi W/o Shri Baljeet Yadav, R/o G-102, Ashiana Angana, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Raj.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrit Surolia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (2 of 3) [CRLMP-608/2018] Order 16/03/2018 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.608/2018:
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.0667/2017 dated 28.9.2017 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.
In the present case, petitioner Smt. Manisha Yadav being victim had performed marriage with Sumit Surolia as per her own wish and accord. Smt. Mukesh Devi, complainant-respondent No.3, lodged the impugned FIR alleging therein that her daughter had eloped with Sumit Surolia.
Today, Smt. Mukesh Devi, complainant-respondent No.3, is present in court. She has been identified by Shri Vikrant, SHO, Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar. Smt. Mukesh Devi in court has stated that she is lawful guardian of Smt. Manisha Yadav who being less than 18 years, left the house to perform the marriage.
Smt. Mukesh Devi has contended that the family has accepted the marriage and has blessed the newly married couple.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence of rape is made out.
Exception-2 to Section 375 IPC specifically state that a sexual intercourse by male with his own wife when the wife is not less than fifteen years of age is not rape. Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC reads as under:-
"Exception 2.--Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-608/2018] Smt. Manisha Yadav, victm and wife of Sumit Surolia has stated before this court that after marriage was solemnized, thereafter sexual relationship was established, hence this assertion of victim also rule out offence under Section 376 IPC because of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
Smt. Mukesh Devi, complainant mother of petitioner, victim has stated that since marriage has been accepted, therefore, it cannot be said that Smt. Manisha Yadav was abducted.
Learned counsel has relied upon S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, to contend that if a minor follow and accompany the accused on her own accord, even offence under Section 365 IPC is not made out.
Taking into account the submissions made above and the fact that the petitioner is living happily with her husband and marriage has been blessed by both the families, present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 489/2018:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of separate order of even date passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.608/2018, present petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.
Ordered accordingly.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Govind/