Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab & Anr.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an ord er dated
16.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana whereby the petition filed by the appel lant under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was dismissed.
2. An FIR No. 31 dated 27.1.2013 was lodged by Rashmi Adhen,
wife of Mohanjit Singh for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 2. The allegations were that her eldest
daughter, 17½ years of age, went out of her house on 23.1.2013 at about
12 noon in the absence of the complainant and her husband. It was
averred that Vikram Roop Rai and the present appellant had kidnapped
her daughter by alluring her for the purpose of marriage.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a report under S ection
173 Code was filed against Vikram Roop Rai. Furthermore, proceedings
for declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender were also initiated.
4. In the proceedings before the Court, the complainant appeared
and recorded her statement while restricting her allegations i n respect
of Vikram Roop Rai only. In the cross-examination, she inter-alia stated
to the following effect:
“My daughter has solemnised marriage with accused Vikram on
4 August 2013 both the families had solemnised the said marriage
at Gurudwara Sahib of Khera Road, Phagwara. I have attended
the said marriage, we prepared CD and also clicked photos of the
1 For short, the ‘Code’
2 For short, the ‘IPC’
61
said marriage. Thereafter, Lunch was served at Poonam Hote l,
Phagwara. After marriage, my daughter and accused Vikra m
stayed with us.”
5. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-2. She deposed that accused
Vikram Roop Rai had taken her on the promise that he would marry her.
He took her to his parents’ house and kept her in his house until she was
18 years of age and only then contacted her parents. It was on 24.7.2013
that the accused Vikram Roop Rai called her parents and it was decided
that both of them would get married. Subsequently, she marr ied the
accused on 4.8.2013.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
13.8.2013 held that neither the complainant nor the prosecutrix have
disclosed the exact date of birth. Further, no birth certificate was produced
to show that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years on the
alleged date of occurrence of abduction. The learned trial court recorded
the following finding:
“21. Although the prosecutrix PW2 in her examination in chief
has stated that the accused had abducted her on the pretext th at
he will solemnized marriage but how and where abducted her has
not been explained by her. Admittedly it is stated by her that was
known to her. There is nothing in the statement of this wit ness
that she tried to escape from the clutches of the accused or that
she was forced to marry him. Even if it is presumed that the
prosecutrix was minor but if she leaves her parents home in every
case it cannot be held that it is the accused who has possibl y
abducted the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was known to the accused,
went with him, married him with consent of both families, h ad
two children with him, then, it cannot be said that she was taken
out forcibly from the custody of her lawful guardian, as it is not
proved that she is minor as non production of birth certificate
issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Jalandhar, gives rise to
the presumption that, the same could have shown her to be major
and hence doubt creeps into the version of the prosecution, th e
benefit of which is to be given to the accused.”
With these findings, the accused Vikram Roop Rai was acquitted.
7. It is thereafter, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High
Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, inter alia,
VISHWAS BHANDARI v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
on the ground that neither the prosecutrix nor the complainant have
levelled an iota of allegation against the appellant in respect of abduction
of the prosecutrix. In fact, the prosecutrix married Vikram Roop Rai,
the main accused and had two children with him. Such marriage was
with the consent of their families. Since there is no shred of evidence
against the appellant, therefore, continuation of proceedings against the
appellant would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant
before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoev er against
the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the
prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children
out of that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant,
we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but
an abuse of process of law.
10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings
initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High
Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant.
11. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The order passed by
the High Court is set aside and the entire proceedings consequ ent to
FIR No. 31 of 2013 and charge sheet stand quashed.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed