High Court of Meghalaya
Shri Rajesh Bir & Ors. vs . State Of Meghalaya on 16 September, 2022
Serial No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 39 of 2022
Date of Decision: 16.09.2022
Shri Rajesh Bir & Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. S. Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed jointly by the
petitioners herein with a prayer to set aside and quash the proceedings in
Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015 pending before the Court of the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.
2. Heard Mr. S. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners who has
submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 were in a love
relationship which started in the year 2014 when the petitioner No. 2 was then
a minor, aged about 15 years. On 17.10.2014 the petitioner No. 2 went to
school as usual and returned home at 4.00 pm. However, her mother came to
know that she did not attend school that day and when she was confronted, the
petitioner No. 2 admitted that she was picked up by the petitioner No. 1 in a
private vehicle and the whole day she was with him at a guest house, whose
location is not known to her.
3. Based on this information, the mother of the petitioner No. 2 who is
also the petitioner No. 3 herein had lodged the FIR before the In-charge,
Pasture Beat House, Shillong on 17.10.2014 upon which Sadar P.S Case No.
359(10) of 2014 under Section 365 IPC was registered. The petitioner No. 1
and the petitioner No. 4 who was the driver of the vehicle involved were
arrested in this connection.
4. On the matter being investigated, the Investigating Officer (I/O) then
filed the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C on 19.03.2015 with a finding
that a prima facie case under Sections 366/34 IPC read with Section 4/6 of the
POCSO Act have been found well established against the accused persons
Rajesh Bir, the petitioner No. 1 herein and a case under Sections 366/109/34
IPC read with 4/6 POCSO Act was also found well established against Dipon
Roy, the petitioner No. 4 herein.
5. The sections of law being cognizable and triable by the Special Court
(POCSO), a formal case was registered as Special POCSO Case No. 23 of
2015 and trial commence with the framing of charge against the accused
persons. In due course, the Court has also examined a number of prosecution
witnesses, ten in all and has exhibited a number of documents as part of the
evidence.
6. It is at this stage that the petitioners have approached this Court with
this instant application and the prayer made as aforesaid.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
records will show that the petitioner No. 2 who is the alleged victim, in her
statement under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been
consistent to say that she is in a love relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and
that she does not want him to be prosecuted. In fact, the petitioner No. 1 and
2 are now living together as husband and wife and they were formally married
on 01.12.2017 at Mahadev Khola Dham Temple, Shillong. Annexure-V to this
petition is the copy of the Marriage Certificate issued by the Priest/In-charge,
Mahadev Khola Dham Temple. Out of this union, a child was also born to
them on 03.10.2019 at Khowai District Hospital in the state of Tripura for
which a birth certificate dated 11.03.2020 was issued by the Registrar (Birth
& Death), Khowai District Hospital. Copy of the Birth Certificate is also
annexed in this petition as Annexure-VI.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the
union between the petitioner No. 1 and 2 and the fact that they are living
together as husband and wife was with the consent of the family members
including the petitioner No. 3 herein who is the mother of the petitioner No. 2
and who has filed the FIR.
9. In view of the fact that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living a happy
married life with a child of their own, pendency and continued prosecution of
the related case against the petitioner No. 1 would only bring hardship and
disruption of the family life which would serve no purpose under the
circumstances. It is therefore prayed that this Court in exercise of its inherent
power may be pleased to bring closure to the case against the petitioner No. 1
and to set aside and quash the FIR dated 17.10.2014 and the consequent
Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2015.
10. As far as the case of the petitioner No. 4 is concerned, he is
admittedly the driver of the vehicle used by the petitioner No. 1 on the said
day of the incident and has nothing to do with the relationship between the
petitioners No. 1 and 2 and could not have been charged with the offences
under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Indeed, if this Court allows the
prayer for quashing of the proceedings, the petitioner No. 4 may also be
accorded the same benefit.
11. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the State
respondent has submitted that the records of the case that is, Special POCSO
Case No. 23 of 2015 has been produced before this Court and on perusal of
the same, this Court may be pleased to pass such further and necessary orders.
However, no strong opposition was made against this petition in the light of
the decision made by this Court in some similarly situated matters where the
benefit has been extended to the petitioner(s) where the related proceedings
before the Court was quashed.
12. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on
consideration of the submission made, particularly on behalf of the petitioners,
the facts stated corresponds with those available on record and as such, need
not be reiterated.
13. As was submitted, the petitioner No. 2 who is the focal point of the
whole proceedings has categorically stated in her statement under Sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C that her relationship with the petitioner No. 1 is consensual
and that she does not want the petitioner No. 1 to be prosecuted. Even in her
deposition in Court as PW-1, she has repeated the same.
14. The petitioner No. 3 who is the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and
who has filed the FIR, in her deposition before the Court as PW-2 has also
stated that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are now living together as husband and
wife and as such, she does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioner
No. 1. This witness has also stated in her evidence that she has not made any
allegation that her daughter (Petitioner No. 2) was raped by the petitioner No.
1. PW-3, Shri. Dilip Das who is the father of the petitioner No. 2 has also
concurred that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are now living together as husband
and wife at Tripura.
15. The other witnesses examined are mostly official witnesses
including doctors who have examined the petitioner No. 2, but for the purpose
of the present petition, their evidence may not be required to be considered.
16. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are now adults and are living together as
husband and wife with a child of their own. Since there was no allegation of
sexual assault, especially since the alleged victim girl who is the petitioner No.
2 herein has denied the same, therefore the charge under Sections 4/6 of the
POCSO Act may be difficult to be proved. Be that as it may, so as not to
disrupt the unity of a family unit, this Court is of the considered opinion that
ends of justice would be met if the proceedings are to be put to a stop at this
stage.
17. In view of the above, this petition is found to be justified and prayer
made thereof is also found acceptable by this Court. The petition is therefore
accordingly allowed.
18. Consequently, the proceedings in Special POCSO Case No. 23 of
2015 is hereby set aside and quashed.
19. Petition disposed of. No costs.
20. Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court case records.
Judge
Meghalaya
16.09.2022
"Tiprilynti-PS"
