IMPORTANT POINT
A redundant criminal case cannot be allowed to continue.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. At the instance of the third respondent, a First Information Report (the FIR), being Case Crime no.106 of 2016, was registered at the Police Station Naka, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) wherein the appellant was shown as an accused. A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for quashing the FIR. By the impugned judgment dated 7th December 2016, the High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. In the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, the allegation of the third respondent was that his daughter (victim – name masked) was studying in Lucknow for coaching in Banking. Her age was 25 years. He stated that the appellant was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi. They met and developed a love for each other. The appellant assured the victim to marry her. When the third respondent approached the appellant’s father and brother with the proposal of marriage, they declined the same. Thereafter, under the pressure exerted by the victim, the appellant got prepared a certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir. By playing fraud, the appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim. He stated that the relatives of the appellant threatened him. He stated that after exploiting his daughter, the appellant came to Sitapur at his residence on 22nd April 2015 and left the victim there. The complaint was filed by the third respondent on 27th May 2015, on the basis of which the FIR was registered.

3. The High Court vide order dated 18th October 2016 issued a notice on the writ petition and granted interim relief restraining the Police from taking the appellant into custody, subject to the condition that the appellant must join the investigation at 10 a.m. on 6th June 2016 at Police Station Sitapur, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh and thereafter, as and when required. Shri Abhay Nath Tripathi filed an affidavit in terms of the order dated 18th October 2016 passed by the High Court. He stated that he recorded the statements of both the victim and the appellant, which showed that a marriage was solemnized between them. However, he stated that the appellant did not fulfil his matrimonial obligations. The allegation is that to avoid criminal proceedings, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HMA’) was filed by the appellant. He stated that the concerned officer conducted the investigation in a fair manner. He stated that the victim was ready to stay with the appellant, and therefore, the chargesheet, though ready, has not been filed to facilitate the amicable settlement of the dispute. The successor of the said officer filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition on 11th August 2017 justifying the registration of the FIR, which also refers to the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the HMA.

SUBMISSIONS

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, invited our attention to Annexure P-2, which is a notice dated 1st May 2015 issued by an advocate on behalf of the victim. The learned counsel submitted that in the notice, the victim admitted that a marriage was solemnized between her and the appellant. He pointed out that on 6th May 2015, a petition under Section 9 of the HMA was filed by the appellant against the victim for restitution of conjugal rights. He submitted that within a few days thereafter, on 27th May 2015, the third respondent lodged the FIR. He urged that the prosecution of the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed it. He pointed out that even the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit stating that as the appellant had married the victim, the allegation of rape may not be s