Uttarakhand High Court
Rishab Lodh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.461 of 2020
With
Compounding Application (CRMA 896 of 2020)
Rishab Lodh ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents
Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This application is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the summoning order dated
14.11.2019 passed by the CJM, Tehri Garhwal under
Sections 376/420/506 IPC in Crl. Case No.1083 of 2019
(Arising out of FIR No.109 of 2019 old FIR No.133 of
2019) along with a further prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case.
2. The above-numbered compounding application
has also been filed seeking to compound the offences
between the parties on the basis of a compromise arrived
at between them.
3. Facts, sans unnecessary details, are that an
FIR was submitted by the respondent no.2 against the
applicant, herein, with the allegations of committing rape
on the false pretext of marriage.
4. It is submitted before the Court that now, in
the changed circumstances, the parties have tied the
nuptial knot and now, they are peacefully living as
husband and wife; their marriage certificate dated
13.8.2019 issued by the competent authority is also on
record as Annexure No.3; there is no allegation to the
effect that the promise to marry given by the applicant to
the second respondent was false at the inception; there
were love affairs between the parties but the informant
lodged the FIR in a hurry; the applicant was always ready
to marry the respondent no.2.
5. Moreover, both the parties i.e. applicant-
Rishab Lodh and respondent no.2- Smt. Kajal Lodh are
also present before the Court through Video Conferencing
being duly identified by their respective counsel; they
clearly state before the Court that they both are major;
they have solemnized the marriage and now they are
living as husband and wife.
6. The instant case falls under Section 376 IPC.
Although, the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC
is generally non-compoundable, but in the present case,
the main allegation is that the applicant, on the false
pretext of marriage, was exploiting the informant.
However, now, they have married with each other and
they together are living as husband and wife. Therefore, I
am of the view that this matter deserves to be decided on
the basis of amicable settlement arrived between the
parties.
7. I am also fortified in my view with the ratio
propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case of
"Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another",
reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1405.
8. Since, the origin of offence itself is declined by
the parties in the compounding application, and now,
they are living happily as husband and wife, as deposed
by them before the Court, therefore, permitting
continuation of trial would itself be a futile exercise.
9. In light of the observations made in the
aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in
view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it
can safely be held that no offence is established against
the applicant in the present case.
10. Accordingly, the instant application deserves
to be allowed on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
11. Resultantly, the Compounding application is
allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties
is accepted. As a consequence, the entire proceedings
pending between the parties shall accordingly stand
quashed and set aside.
12. C482 application is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
03.08.2021
Rdang
