Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary ... on 23 February, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary ... on 23 February, 2021

Bench: Narayan Singh Dhanik

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                  NAINITAL

       Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1968/2020


Amzad Ali (Male) aged about 28 years S/o Aslam Ali
R/o Village Rahimpur Gangnahar, Roorkee, Gangnahar,
District Haridwar.
                                          ... Petitioner


                            Versus

  1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home,
     Secretariat, Dehradun.
  2. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee,
     District Haridwar.
  3. Suraiya D/o Mohd. Afjal R/o 452/1 Sot Mohalla,
     Roorkee, Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar.
                                            ... Respondents



   Shri Nandan Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
   Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State.
   Mr. Rajendra Singh Negi, Advocate, for              the
   complainant/respondent no. 3.

                  February 23, 2021


Hon'ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.

The facts of the case are that the third respondent lodged an FIR bearing no. 0621/2020, for the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, against the petitioner at the Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. Petitioner and the complainant were known to 2 each other and were in love. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made sexual intercourse with the complainant on the pretext of marrying her and subsequently raped her repeatedly threatening to make viral her obscene photographs. However, in her 164 CrPC statement, the victim has not at all supported the prosecution story. She has also stated that she has married the petitioner on 13.12.2020 and since then she has been living happily in her matrimonial house and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner.

Today also, petitioner and the complainant, duly identified by their respective Counsel, appeared in person before this Court and ratified the above facts. Complainant has also filed her affidavit stating that she has married the petitioner on 13.12.2020 and happily living with her and that she does not want to prosecute the petitioner. She also stated before this Court that she lodged the impugned FIR on the instigation of some other individuals. Nikahnama has also been annexed with the affidavit of the complainant.

Learned State Counsel also does not object to the prayer of the petitioner and fairly submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be futile to prosecute the petitioner and the impugned FIR should be quashed.

In view of the above, it is clear that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute inasmuch as they married each other and are living together. Both the parties are major. The complainant clearly stated before this Court also that she is not at all interested in prosecuting the accused petitioner. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has absolutely no doubt that the ends of justice shall not be achieved if the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner is permitted to continue and even if it is done so, the ultimate consequence shall be the acquittal or dismissal of the indictment of the accused petitioner.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. FIR no. 0621/2020, for the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, lodged against the petitioner at the Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.) Pr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court