Parents cannot be held vicariously liable for their adult child's actions without direct allegations against them; FIR quashed due to lack of evidence.

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this petition under Section 561-A Cr.PC (now 482 Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought the quashing of the FIR No. 0134/2019, dated 07.09.2019 registered with Police Station, Nowabad, for commission of offences under Section 376/420 RPC, at the instance of respondent No. 3. The petitioners have also filed an application for grant of bail.

2. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the mother and father of the petitioner No.3 respectively. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 started following the petitioner No. 3 and developed acquaintance with him. In the year 2016, the respondent No.3 started compelling him to marry her, but the petitioner No. 3 did not agree as she was Muslim and the petitioner No. 3 was a Hindu. In the month of October 2018, the respondent No. 3 told the petitioner No. 3 that if he did not marry her, she would implicate him in false and frivolous cases and would tell everyone that the petitioner No. 3 was her husband. When the petitioner No. 3 refused, she started blackmailing him.

3. The petitioners have sought the quashing of FIR on the ground that if the story projected by the respondent No. 3 is accepted in its entirety that she is a legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 3 and has been living with the petitioner No.3 since 2016, still no offence under Section 376 RPC is made out. The contents of the application submitted by the respondent No. 3, pursuant to which the impugned FIR has been registered, nowhere reveal that the offence under Section 376 RPC is made out. The respondent No. 3 earlier had approached the Police Station, Sarwal and started blackmailing the petitioner No. 3 and when she could not succeed, she approached the Police Station, Nowabad, in whose jurisdiction, they never resided. It is also urged by the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 was married lady and divorced by her husband.

4. The official respondents have filed the response stating therein that on 07.09.2019, a complaint of respondent No. 3 was received in the Police Station through DPO, Jammu, pursuant to which FIR No. 134/2019 under Sections 376/420 RPC was registered with the Police Station, Nowabad and the investigation was entrusted to Sabdar Hussain Shah. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Sections 161 Cr. P.C. The Investigating Officer also got recorded the statement of the victim/ complainant under Section 164 Cr. P.C. She was also examined by the Doctor in Govt. Medical Hospital, Sarwal. The Investigating Officer also seized the Nikahnama. But thereafter the investigation could not be continued as the same was stayed in this petition.

5. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the response, stating therein that it has been falsely stated that she was married and divorced subsequently. In fact, that the petitioner No. 3 made a marriage proposal to the respondent No. 3 in the year 2016. He made number of attempts to make physical relations with her, which she always resisted. Finally, she agreed to solemnize the marriage with the petitioner No. 3 and ultimately on 17.08.2016, the marriage between petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 3 was solemnized in presence of witnesses and Molvi. A nikahnama was also executed and signed by the parties to the marriage and witnesses. For solemnizing marriage with her, the petitioner No. 3 renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam and changed his name as Atif Ahmad. In the Nikahnama, the parties have put their thumb impressions. After solemnizing the marriage with the respondent No. 3, the petitioner No. 3 entered into physical relations with her. The respondent No. 3 loved the petitioner No. 3 and solemnized marriage with him, but he and his family members have cheated her and now just to get rid of her, false allegations have been levelled. The respondent No. 3 has annexed photographs along with her reply. It has also been stated by the respondent No. 3 that afte