Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Priti vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42793) on 19 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:42793]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6739/2024
Priti D/o Dharu Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Kotwad Tal, Dist.
Churu, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dharu Ram S/o Sh. Ratiram, R/o Kotwad Tal, Dist.
Churu, Raj.
3. Sunil Kumar S/o Gopi Ram, R/o Ranasar Pawaran, Teh.
Bhanipura Dist. Churu, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SR Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Jaipal Singh for R.2 & 3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral)
19/10/2024
1. The petitioner herein, aged 22 years, is the prosecutrix-
victim herself. She seeks quashing of an FIR lodged at her
instance through her father which has been registered against her
friend-live in partner/accused-Sunil Kumar.
2. Impugned FIR No. 111/2024 dated 20.09.2024, has been
lodged at Police Station Bhaleri, District Churu, for alleged
offences under Sections 354(a), 376D, 376(2)(n), 450, and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is sought herein on the basis of
compromise arrived between the parties.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Dharu Ram
(father of the prosecutrix-Priti, who is the petitioner in SBCRLMP
No. 6739/2024), submitted a complaint on 18.07.2024 at Police
[2024:RJ-JD:42793] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6739/2024]
Station Bhaleri, Dist. Churu, inter alia alleging that his daughter
was abducted and raped by one Sunil Kumar (accused). He
alleged that she was a minor at the time of the incident. He also
alleged that the accused used abusive language slurring their
caste.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner/victim (Prosecutrix) as well as learned counsel for
the accused/respondent No.3-Sunil Kumar and learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. It transpires that the prosecutrix, Priti, was, in fact, earlier
married to one Rajveer on 04.12.2022. She was of marriageable
age then also, being 20 years old. However, her marriage soon fell
on the rocks. Being unsatisfied with her marriage, she left her
parental home accompanied with the accused-Sunil Kumar, on
18.06.2024.
6. Subsequently, they started living together. Pursuant thereto,
they also executed a live-in relationship agreement dated
18.06.2024. Furthermore, Sunil Kumar and Priti also filed an
application before the Superintendent of Police, Churu, on
24.06.2024, seeking protection from their parents and relatives.
7. It is pointed out that the complainant, Dharu Ram, father of
prosecutrix, lodged the FIR in question, by misleading that his
daughter was a minor at the time of incident. Whereas, in fact,
she was a major, as is borne out from her Aadhar Card, which
mentions her date of birth as 15.12.2002.
8. In course of arguments, it has also been stated that after the
registration of the FIR, the matter has been mutually settled
[2024:RJ-JD:42793] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6739/2024]
between the parties and pursuant thereto the complainant-Dharu
Ram, no longer now wishes to pursue the present FIR.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
compromise between the parties is not in dispute. In view thereof,
even the prosecutrix herself is not inclined to press charges
against the accused/respondent No.3-Sunil Kumar and proceed
further in the matter.
10. Learned counsel has places reliance on a decision of
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab1.
He urges that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings
may be quashed on the basis of compromise.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public
Prosecutor concur with the fact of compromise and submit that in
view of the compromise, they have no objection if the FIR in
question is quashed.
12. In fact, matter was earlier heard by me on 11.09.2024,
when following order was passed by this Court :-
"The petitioner and the prosecutrix are stated to be in a
consensual relationship. Although the prosecutrix is already married,
she had a fall out with her husband due to matrimonial discord. The
FIR in question was registered on the complaint of her father, who
allegedly misrepresented her as a minor. However, her date of birth
certificate indicates that she is 22 years old, and the fact that she is
already married further confirms that she is of legal age of marriage.
Furthermore, she has filed an affidavit stating that their
relationship was consensual and that she wishes to live with the
petitioner of her own free will.
Meanwhile, the respondent No. 3, the prosecutrix, and the
petitioner, who is currently in custody, shall appear before the
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The Registrar will verify the
details of the compromise and submit a report on its genuineness.
The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) on
17.09.2024.
List the matter before this Court on 18.09.2024 along with the
report of the Registrar (Judicial)."
(2012) 10 SCC 303
[2024:RJ-JD:42793] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6739/2024]
13. Apropos, a report has been submitted by the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court, which states as under:-
"Registrar (Judicial)
Dated 10.10.2024
As per usual directions of the Court, the prosecutrix Preeti is present
today. Accused Sunil Kumar is not present as he is in judicial custody.
Hon'ble Court has directed to verify the details of the compromise,
however compromise has not been filed. But an affidavit / statement of the
prosecutrix has been filed.
The contents of the affidavit/statement of the prosecutrix have been
explained to her, which she has accepted to be true and correct.
The prosecutrix has been identified by the counsel Mr. Deependra Singh
Shekhawat, Advocate. Thus the affidavit / statement of the prosecutrix has
been verified accordingly.
Identified by Sd/-
Sd/- D.S. Bhati
Adv. Deependra Singh Shekhawat Registrar (Judicial)
sd/- & (thumb impression)
Priti (prosecutrix)"
14. It is thus clear that prosecutrix was in consensual
relationship. In this context, reference may be had to a judgment
rendered in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of H.P2.
Relevant extract of judgment ibid is reproduced herein-below :-
"30. Following some of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, invariably all the High Courts including this Court
through its various Single Benches have quashed proceedings not
only under Section 376 of IPC but also POCSO. After all, the very
purpose of inherent power given to the High Courts under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of
justice, the touchstone for exercising that power would be to secure
ends of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere
law. Though justice has got to be administered in accordance with
the law enacted by the Legislature. The concept of justice is elastic
and is imperceptible. There can be no hard and fast line constricting
the power of the High Courts to do substantial justice. A restrictive
construction of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may
lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and
circumstances may lead to grave injustice, nonetheless such powers
of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings bearing in mind;
(i) The nature and effect of the offence on the consciousness of the
society;
(ii) Seriousness of injury, if any;
Himachal Pradesh High Court (Cr.MMO No.648/2023), decided on 08.12.2023
[2024:RJ-JD:42793] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6739/2024]
(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
victim;
(iv) Conduct of accused; prior to and after the occurrence of the
purported offence or other relevant considerations.
31. It would also to be clear from the aforesaid exposition of law
enunciated above that though the High Courts should not normally
interfere with the investigation/criminal proceedings involving
sexual offences against women and children, only on the ground of
settlement, it is ( sic has) not completely foreclosed in exercising its
extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to quash such proceedings "extraordinary
circumstances to do complete justice to the parties". However, it is
always a difficult task for the Court to identify the so-called
"extraordinary circumstances". The Court has to bear in mind the
interest of the victim as also the societal interest which often clash
making the job of the Court more difficult and complex. All the
relevant issues must be considered from all perspective and the pros
and cons must be weighed and a rational view then taken. Holistic
approach is called for identifying cases that are fit for
compromise."
15. Reverting to the case in hand, the age of the petitioner is not
in dispute, as is borne out form her Aadhar Card appended with
the petition, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 15.12.2002.
The prosecutrix, now an adult, is very knowledgeable about her
situation and filly capable making her own decisions confidently.
She understands her rights and responsibilities, allowing her to
advocate for herself and others effectively.
16. In the aforesaid premise, since it appears that it was an
outright consensual relationship between the accused/respondent
No.3-Sunil Kumar and the petitioner-Priti (prosecutrix) and
offence, if any, committed is other than of Section 376 of IPC. As
far as Section 376 of IPC is concerned and other consequential
sections have been invoked, no offence has been committed by
the accused/respondent No.3-Sunil Kumar since the entire
narrative leading to the registration of the FIR is not believe
worthy and falls flat on all squares.
[2024:RJ-JD:42793] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6739/2024]
17. Resultantly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The FIR
No. 111/2024 dated 20.09.2024, lodged at Police Station Bhaleri,
District Churu, along with all other consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom for alleged offences under Sections 354(a),
376D, 376(2)(n), 450, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, against the accused/respondent No.3-Sunil Kumar are hereby
quashed with consequences to follow.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN MONGA),J
64-Jitender/Suraj
Whether fit for reporting - yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
