Rajinder Kumar And Another vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 545 j&K

                                     h475




                                                               S.No.298

            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT JAMMU
                    (through virtual mode)
                                        CRM(M)No.438/2020
                                        CrlM No.1696/2020



Rajinder Kumar and another                                 ...Petitioner(s)

                          Through:- Mr. Jagpaal Singh, Advocate
      V/s
Union Territory of J&K and another                        ...Respondent(s)
                  Through:- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for R-1
                            Mr. Rohan Nanda, Advocate for R-2
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

1. This quashment petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is directed against the criminal challan No.65/2019

titled State v. Rajiinder Kumar and another pending disposal before the

learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, which has arisen out of FIR No.34/2019

under Sections 376/420/109 RPC dated 09.04.2019.

2. The petitioners seek quashment of the challan primarily on the

ground that petitioner No.1 and the complainant i.e. respondent No.2 have

amicably settled the issue and have solemnized marriage on 28.10.2020 as

per Hindu rites and customs and are peacefully living together as husband

and wife. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 on the

basis of mere apprehension that petitioner No.1, who had promised to

marry respondent No.2, would not fulfill his promise and it is out of this

apprehension a false and baseless FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 in

the Police Station, Billawar. It is submitted by the petitioner No.1 that he

had all along intention to marry respondent No.2 and it is only because of

some misunderstanding/miscommunication, respondent No.2 entertained a

baseless apprehension that petitioner No.1 may not marry her and,

therefore, the FIR.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed her objections and has admitted this

position. She has admitted that she is now married to petitioner No.1 and

the two are living happily as husband and wife. She claimed that the FIR

was a result of some misunderstanding and her mis-apprehension that

petitioner No.1 may not marry her.

4. Be that as it may, she through her objections has also supported the

case of the petitioner for quashment of the FIR, which was lodged at her

instance.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,

I am of the view that considering the nature of allegations in the

FIR/challan and realization of the fact that registration of FIR was a result

of miscommunication and misunderstanding, which has now been fully

resolved by the parties, the basis of FIR has ceased to survive.

6. Taking over all view of the matter and having regard to the fact that

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have entered into marital wedlock and

are living happily, allowing the challan to proceed before the Sessions

Court, Kathua would be a sheer abuse of the process of law. Otherwise

also, the very basis of lodging of the FIR, which culminated into

presentation of the impugned challan was apprehension of respondent No.2

that petitioner No.1 on the pretext of marrying her had made physical

relation with her, is now completely allayed with the parties entering into

marital wedlock.

7. For the foregoing reasons and relying upon a judgment of the

Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.394-395 of 2021 decided on

1.04.2021, I deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to quash the

impugned challan pending disposal before the learned Sessions Judge,

Kathua.

Ordered accordingly.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge

Jammu 04.05.2021 Vinod.