The court emphasized that where the material on record discloses commission of cognizable offences, the courts would be reluctant to quash the proceedings.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

CRMC No. 296/2018

1. The petitioners have challenged FIR No. 33/2018 for offences under Section 366, 376, 109 RPC of Police Station, Vilgam District Kupwara.

2. Before coming to the contentions raised in the petition, a brief narration of the facts alleged in the impugned F.I.R. is required to be noticed.

3. On 13.05.2018, respondent No. 5 (complainant) lodged a report with the police alleging therein that his daughter, aged 18/19 years, has been kidnapped by the petitioner No. 1 with the aid and assistance of other accused after having been enticed by petitioner No. 1 to go with him and that his daughter has been taken to some undisclosed location. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place during the intervening night of 12th/13th May, 2018. On the basis of this report, the police registered impugned F.I.R. and started investigation of the case. During investigation of the case, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the petitioner No. 1 on 11.05.2018, whereafter she was medically examined and was handed over to her father. After obtaining the medical report of the prosecutrix, offence under Section 376 RPC was also found to have been established.

4. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Handwara, on 26.06.2018, in which she has stated that on the fateful night at about 11:00 P.M., when she had gone to close the gate, she found petitioner No. 1 present over there. Besides this, co-accused, Ateeqa was also present over there. According to the prosecutrix, both of them gagged her mouth and she was put in a vehicle and was made unconscious. She has further stated that on the next day, when she regained her senses and found herself in the jungles of Kathpora Kupwara. She also noticed that besides petitioner No. 1, co-accused Bashir Ahmad Dar, Farooq Ahmad Bhat, Abdul Rashid Bhat and Azad Ahmad Bhat were also present over there. She went on to state that she was again made unconscious, as a result of which she did not come to know as to what treatment was given to her by petitioner No. 1 and his associates. She also stated that the petitioner No. 1 was repeatedly making her unconscious and that she was recovered from the woods of Kathpora and handed over to her family members. Thus, according to prosecution case, offences under Section 366, 109 RPC stand established against the accused including the petitioners herein.

5. It has been contended by petitioner No. 1 that the prosecutrix/respondent No. 6 have entered into a wedlock out of their own will and volition and in this regard a Nikah Nama was executed, a copy whereof has been placed on record. The petitioners have also submitted that a marriage agreement dated 15.05.2018 was executed by the parties, a copy whereof has been placed on record.

6. It has been further contended that in a writ petition bearing OWP No. 852/2018, filed by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 6, the prosecutrix, this Court passed an order on 21.05.2018 whereby the police was directed to take action on the representation of the petitioners therein in the light of the law laid down in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 475. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. It is the contention of the petitioners that upon service of aforesaid order upon official respondents, instead of providing protection to petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 6, the police handed over custody of respondent No. 6 to her father. On these grounds, the petitioners have contended that continuance of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of law and, as such, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. In support of their contentions, the petitioners have relied upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases:

(I) [1]Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443;

(II) Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. The State of