The court established that consensual relationships do not constitute abduction, and without evidence of remarriage, related offenses under IPC are not applicable.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - Respondent no.2 Ranveer in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3946/2022 has brought this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., for recalling of order dated 24.05.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.3946/2022, whereby this Court had quashed FIR No.415/2021 under Section 366 IPC registered with Pahari Police Station in the district of Bharatpur.

2. Contention of the applicant is that he is informant of the aforesaid FIR. Though, he was party respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc. Petition No.3946/2022, however, he could not appear and contest the said case as he was in jail in some other case. It is a fact that respondent no.2 had not appeared and contested the proceedings when order dated 24.05.2022 was passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. No.3946/2022.

3. A brief background is that applicant Ranveer had lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging therein that his wife was abducted by the accused persons, who were petitioners in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3946/2022. The wife was respondent no.3 in the said criminal misc. petition. She appeared in court alongwith an affidavit wherein she specifically stated that no one had abducted her, rather she was in live-in relationship voluntarily with Sanjiv, one of the accused.

4. This Court considered the dictum in Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 and Safi Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018(6) SCC 368, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional morality ought to have precedence over societal morality. Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborately discussed right of privacy of an individual and its extent.

5. The victim herself stated before the court that she was not abducted by anyone to go, therefore, this Court was of the view that offence under Section 366 IPC was not made out and accordingly quashed the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that a married lady had admitted that she was in extra-marital relationship in the nature of live-in-relationship with one of the petitioner Sanjiv, therefore, offence under Sections 494 and 497 IPC are made out. Moreover, to protect social morality and not to protect any extramarital relationship by a married person the court should exercise jurisdiction accordingly. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjot Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., decided on 25.01.2023 vide Criminal Writ Petition No.158/2023.

7. It is evident that the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above were not placed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the aforesaid case.

8. In S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3196; decided on 28.04.2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law in para-21 as follows :-

'21. While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting, with the exception of 'adultery' as defined under Section 497 IPC. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision given by this Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522, wherein it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of 'adultery'), even though it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or "live with anyone she likes". In that case, the petitioner was a woman who had married a man belonging to another caste and had begun cohabitation with him. The petitioner's brother had filed a criminal complaint accusing her husband of offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC, thereby leading to the commencement of trial proceedings. This Court had entertained a writ petition and granted relief by quashing the criminal trial. Furthermore, the Court had noted that 'no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole crimi