IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Surjit Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 4660 of 2020
Decided On : 05-06-2024
Quashing - FIR - IPC Sections 363-A, 366, CrPC Section 482 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding kidnapping and the inherent powers of the High Court under CrPC to quash FIRs when the accused and victim are married and living together, emphasizing justice over strict legal adherence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging kidnapping of a minor, claiming he married the victim, who was of legal age, and they had children together. The FIR was filed by the victim's father, opposing their marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim had married the petitioner of her own free will and was living happily with him and their children, thus quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed given that the accused and victim are married and living together, and the victim was of legal age at the time of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the victim voluntarily married the accused and they have children, the FIR alleging kidnapping does not stand, as the legal provisions do not apply in such circumstances.
Result: The FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.: The present petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “Section 482”),by the petitioner-Surjit Rai for quashing of FIR 268 dated 25.12.2009 (impugned FIR) registered under Sections 363-A/366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Payal, District Khanna, Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It would be pertinent to refer herein to the factual matrix of the present lis:
“Statement of Ketab Singh alias Ravi son of Ram Parshadi caste yadav r/o Village Roopdhani, P.S. Jaithra, Distt Eta, State UP at present tenant of Kuldeep Singh, r/o Ward No.8, Payal, aged about 40 years. It is stated that I am resident of the aforesaid address. About ten years ago, I migrated to Punjab and started residing at Payal. I have four sons and two daughters. My elder daughter Jyoti is aged 15 years. And younger daughter Arti is aged 13 years, who is 5th standard passed from Payal school. My wife died in a roadside accident, therefore, my daughter was doing the household work at home. My brother-in-law (Sala),Vinod Kumar son of Birbal Singh r/o Hanukhera, P.S Bhoga, Distt Mehpuri, U.P was residing near to us at Payal from last 15/16 years, who used to install a rehri of kulcha’ at Bus Stand, Payal. One Surjit Rai son of Surinder Rai caste Yadav r/o Desaipur, Swaipati, Distt Muzaffar Nagar, Bihar, was residing with him for last P.S. ten years, who was also selling Kulchas on rehri along with my brother-in-law. I have also installed a rehri of ‘golgappas’ at bus stand, Payal. Due to this reason, Surjit Rai, servant of my brother-in-law Vinod Kumar used to visit my house. On 21.12.2009, I along with my sons was present at Bus Stand, Payal, where we had installed a rehri’. My daughter Jyoti and Arti were at home. When at about 8.00 PM, I returned my home, then my daughter Jyoti informed that Arti had gone to the market in the evening but did not come back. I searched for my daughter Arti but could not trace her. Surjit Rai, servant of my brother in law Vinod Kumar, was also not at his home. I believe that the said Surjit Rai had enticed away my daughter. Today I was going to police station for giving information but you met me near bus stand Payal. Statement has been recorded, heard and correct. Action be taken….xx”
The complainant/informant in the impugned FIR is one Ketab Singh, who has been impleaded as respondent No.2 herein and the victim is his daughter namely Aarti Devi, who has been impleaded as respondent No.3 (herein).
(ii) The petitioner has pleaded that he got married with the victim (respondent No.3 herein) on 23.04.2010 whereinafter they had been living in the State of Bihar as husband and wife. It has been further pleaded that out of this wedlock, three children have been born.
(iii) The petitioner is stated to have been arrested approximately after 07 years of the registration of the impugned FIR. After being arrested, the petitioner was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 27.10.2016. It is worthwhile to notice that, during the course of proceedings in the bail petition before the Sessions Court, a statement of the victim was recorded which has been reproduced in the said bail order and the same reads as under:
“During the course of arguments, prosecutrix, appeared through Counsel Ms. Rachna Dev, Advocate, and got recorded her statement as below:-
“Stated that I performed marriage as per Hindu rites with applicant-accused Surjit Rai with my free will and consent on 23.4.2010. I was major at the time of alleged occurrence and at the time of my marriage. I am happily married with applicant-accused Surjit Rai. Out of our wedlock, we have two children. My elder child/son namely Paramjit Kumar was born on 4.5.2011, photocopy of his birth certificate is Mark A. My younger daughter RinkeyKimari was born on 29.11.2014, ph
The court established that a victim's marriage to the accused and her consent can negate allegations of kidnapping under IPC and POCSO Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'taking' and 'enticing' a minor under Section 361 IPC, and the court's exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C....
The court established that actions taken by a minor nearing the age of majority, when coupled with voluntary choice, negate allegations of kidnapping under IPC.
The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if parties amicably settle disputes, balancing justice with public interest.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 when the parties amicably settle their dispute and continuation of proceedings would cause extreme injustice.
Quash a Proceeding - Power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the p....
If a minor voluntarily leaves the guardianship and joins someone without inducement or pressure, no offence under Section 363 IPC is made out if the girl is aged more than 17 years and is mature enou....
The court's decision was based on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the settlement between the p....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the significance of genuine settlements in matrimonial disputes and the exercise of the power of quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate c....
Kidnapping - Saving inherit powers of High Court - Section 482 of Code, High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where parties have ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.