Delhi High Court
State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Neeraj on 16 February, 2018
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 16th FEBRUARY, 2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 132/2018
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Jaivind
Kumar, PS Kalyanpuri.
versus
NEERAJ ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.No. 2911/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A.No. 2910/2018 (Delay)
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application for
condonation of delay in filing the petition, the delay is condoned.
2. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 132/2018
1. Present revision petition has been filed against the
respondent by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an
order dated 09.08.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which the
respondent was discharged of the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act in
case FIR No.491/2016 registered at PS Kalyanpuri.
2. I have heard the learned APP for the State and have
examined the file. Record reveals that the victim's father had lodged a
missing report after a delay of two days when the victim did not return
to home. The victim and the respondent had filed a joint petition
bearing W.P.(Crl.) 754/2017 on 09.03.2017 before this Court to seek
protection. The petition came up for hearing before this Court on
09.03.2017 and 29.03.2017. It was informed to the Court that both the
prosecutrix and respondent were living together. Initially, the
prosecutrix was not willing to go to her parents' house and was sent to
Sanskar Ashram on 09.03.2017. On 29.03.2017, however, after
counselling, the victim agreed to return to her parental home. This
Court allowed both the victim and the respondent to meet once in a
fortnight at a specified time to be agreed upon mutually in a public
park in the presence of victim's parents. Certain restrictions were also
imposed upon the victim's parents that she would not be married till
the age of 18 years and shall not be taken out of Delhi without her
consent. The said petition came to be disposed of with certain
observations on 29.03.2017.
3. In the MLC, the hymen was found 'old' torn. Statement
given to the medical officer was that the victim had married the
respondent with her free will on 10.12.2016 and was staying with him
since then. No external injury was found on victim's body. In her
164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on 14.03.2017, she informed that she
herself had gone with her husband and lived with him after performing
marriage. She showed inclination to live with the respondent. Only on
29.03.2017, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is alleged
that certain allegations were levelled by the prosecutrix against the
respondent for forcible relations.
4. The Trial Court has discussed the statements of the
prosecutrix made before this Court as well as before the learned
Presiding Officer under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she did not implicate
the respondent for enticing her or establishing physical relations
against her consent. Throughout, case of the respondent was that she
was having affair with the respondent and they had performed
marriage. Since she had apprehension at the hands of her parents as
the marriage was to their disliking, they had approached this Court to
seek protection.
5. Nothing material emerges on record to proceed against
the respondent for commission of offences under Sections 363/376
IPC as the prosecutrix had accompanied the respondent with her free
consent and the marriage had taken place between the two.
6. No ingredients of Sections 363/376 IPC are attracted.
The impugned order suffers from no illegality or irregularity.
7. The revision petition is dismissed being unmerited.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2018 / tr
