Uttarakhand High Court
Guddo Devi And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 May, 2023
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Reserved on:-17.05.2023
Delivered on:-19.05.2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.338 of 2016
(Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C)
Guddo Devi and Another ........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ........Respondents
Present:-
Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.P.S Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This C482 application is directed against the charge-sheet dated 09.11.2011 filed in Case Crime No. 170 of 2011 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2262 of 2012, "State Vs. Bishan Singh and Another"
under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as the summoning order dated 31.03.2012, which was served upon the applicant in the month of March, 2016.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present C482 application, are that the First Information Report was lodged on 06.05.2011, by respondent no.2 - Rohtash, S/o Vikram, Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, on the basis of which a Case Crime No. 170 of 2011, under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC was registered against Rinku, S/o Harkesh, R/o Village Hajjarpur, Police Station Raipur, District Bijnor.2
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded, in the First Information Report is that on 02.05.2011, the daughter of the informant, aged about 15 years was sleeping with her mother. In the morning, she was found missing from her house; a search was made and the house of accused - Rinku was found locked. It is alleged that the accused - Rinku, who was living in the neighbourhood, in the house of Munni Dai has kidnapped and enticed away, the daughter of the informant. The investigation ensued and a charge-sheet was submitted only against the accused - Rinku by the Investigating Officer, Charge Sheet No. 71 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011, in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and the accused was put to trial in the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2011, "State Vs. Rinku" under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC.
4. It appears from the record that, initially, the charge-sheet was submitted only against the accused Rinku but, later on, a Supplementary Charge-Sheet No. 71-A of 2011 dated 09.11.2011 was also submitted against the applicants and vide order dated 31.03.2012, a cognizance was taken thereupon under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC against both the applicants and they were summoned to face the trial. It is this charge-sheet, summoning order dated 31.03.2012 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2262 of 2012, "State Vs. Bishan Singh and Another", which have been put to challenge in the present C482 Application as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, as per the applicants, on the date of 3 incident, the victim was major and both Rinku and Victim
- Poonam have solemnized marriage on 05.05.2011, and, the same was registered in the office of Registrar of Hindu Marriage, Nagina, District Bijnor and a registration certificate to this effect was issued by the Registrar on 10.08.2011, which is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the C482 Application.
6. The applicants have annexed the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 31.07.2013 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2011, "State Vs. Rinku" under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC by reason of which, the accused - Rinku was acquitted of all the charges. On the strength of this judgment and acquittal, it has been argued on behalf of the applicants that victim - Poonam, nowhere supported the case of the prosecution rather while appearing in the witness box, she deposed that she was major and her date of birth is 15.02.1992; she was not forcibly kidnapped by the accused - Rinku; she has not been raped by him. She further deposed that she was known to Rinku and they entered into nuptial cord, and are living like husband and wife. Out of this wedlock, a girl child was born. She also stated on oath that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Magistrate was given by her under pressure of her parents and the Police, as she was threatened by them that if she did not give statement as per their wish, they will kill the accused - Rinku.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.4
8. I am afraid as to whether the finding recorded by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in case of the accused - Rinku would be read in favour of the present applicants, but still there is no denying of the fact that victim - Poonam who was major at the date of incident, is now wife of Rinku. Both of them are peacefully leading their marital life and out of their wedlock, on 05.05.2011 a girl child was born.
9. Both the applicants are in-laws with whom Rinku and Poonam are happily residing. The main accused - Rinku against whom the allegations of kidnapping and rape was levelled in the First Information Report, has already been acquitted of those charges by reason of the judgment and order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2011, "State Vs. Rinku" by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The only evidence, which the prosecution could boast of having could be the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, but the victim - Poonam completely retracted from those statement before the Court of law while deposing as witness P.W.1. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served if the applicants are directed to face the trial. If in the above scenario the applicants are directed to face the trial, it would be the travesty of justice and abuse of process of law for the reason that this trial would result into acquittal.
10. In this view of the matter, the supplementary charge-sheet No. 71-A of 2001 dated 09.11.2011 submitted by the Investigating Officer against the 5 applicants is hereby quashed and accordingly the summoning order dated 03.12.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2262 of 2011, State Vs. Rinku and Another" under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar is hereby quashed.
11. The present C482 application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) Shubham