Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) FIR, it is alleged that some unknown person has taken her. Later on, she was recovered from Bhopal and her statement was recorded by police in which, she submitted that she went along with petitioner No.1 Pankaj who is her first cousin (son of her maternal uncle) and referred allegations of rape first time in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In fact, the police did not consider her statement worth credence because of her attitude, behaviour and thought process which was not looking sincere enough and she was looking childish. She wanted to marry her first cousin and therefore, under the heat of passion, she made a statement which is implicative in nature. She wanted to marry her brother which would have been incestual relationship. Therefore, both families came under shock because of declaration of the Prosecutrix. It appears that good sense prevailed over the Prosecutrix as well as other family members and she got married on 8th March, 2019. Although allegation of rape and POCSO Act are available on record but on close scrutiny of evidence, it appear that it is a result of incestual infatuation and therefore, under the influence of that feeling, she wanted to marry her first cousin and when he declined the offer, she registered the instant FIR.

Normally, this court would not entertain the matter where allegations of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C and ingredients of POCSO Act are alleged. This court is also aware of the legal position THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.6904/2019.

(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) that an offence under Section 376 is a grievous offence and is considered the offence against the society at large but more injustice would be caused if the prosecution of petitioners is allowed to continue because, petitioner No.1 is first cousin of the Prosecutrix and it appears that both the parties or at least Prosecutrix had harboured an incestual affection towards petitioner No.1 and when Prosecutrix did not get response as per her feeling, then she registered the case against her own brother. Peculiar fact situation of the case and factual matrix indicates that continuance of trial would be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the petitioners and to the complainant as well. Now, she is a married lady, therefore, continuance of case and her regular appearance before the trial court as a witness may create domestic incompatibility and therefore, it is better that the dispute be buried deep, once and for all.