2024:CGHC:33009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2279 of 2023

1 - Suresh Bharti S/o Baldhari Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Barhol, Post Tejpur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

2-Xyz

3 - Prakash Kumar S/o Santram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Barhol, Post Tejpur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jagsai Singh S/o Babulal Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Keshavnagar, Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kashyap, Advocate ForRespondent/State : Mr. T.S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

29/08/2024

1. The present petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 16/2020, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section 311 of The Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner / accused.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused and the complainant were in love affair but the family members of the complainant were opposing because both belongs to two different castes. Due to which the petitioner and the complainant got married on 14.11.2018 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur (C.G.) according to Hindu customs and rituals. The family members of the complainant did not allow the marriage and they forcibly separated the complainant and brought her back home and they put pressure on the complainant to lodge report at police station against the petitioner/accused. The complainant lodged report against the petitioner/accused under the pressure of her family members and the police of Police Station Ramanujnaganj registered FIR bearing Crime No. 146/2019 for offence punishable under Section 120-B, 200, 366, 376(2)(n), 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code. The family members of the complainant put pressure on the complainant by threatening and assaulting to make statement against the petitioner/accused before the trial Court. The family members of the complainant wanted to marry the complainant with another person forcibly, then the complainant opposed her family members and clearly refused to marry with another person. Being troubled by her family members, the complainant filed a writ petitioner i.e. WPC/230/2023 before this Hon'ble Court seeking security from her family members and this Hon'ble Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 13.01.2023. The petitioner/accused is on bail and the complainant is residing with petitioner/accused as his wife. Therefore, the petitioner/accused filed the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 04.02.2023 for re- examine the prosecution witness PW-1 without appearance of her parents and the complainant also filed application in support of the said application, but without considering the factual fact and circumstance of the case, the learned trial court has rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09.05.2023.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/ quashed. The learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by relying upon the provisions of Section 309(2)(b) of Cr. P.C. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate though on the date of examination of the complainant, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court, but at the time of recording the statement, the parents and the other family members of the complainant were also present with the complainant pressurizing the complainant to make statement