The High Court dismissed the CRLMC filed by the petitioner to quash proceedings under IPC 366A. The Court held that no evidence was produced to show the victim was a major or that the parties were married; thus, the protestation of voluntary leave could not be accepted prima facie to quash the prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMC No.3801 of 2009
10. 14.07.2017 Heard.
The petitioner has filed this CRLMC under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. t
o quash the proceeding against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.207 of 2006, arising out of Bon
ai P.S. Case No.28 of 2006, registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366
A of the I.P.C., pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bonai.
It appears that the petitioner has been prosecuted under Section 366A
of the I.P.C. in the aforesaid case at the instance of the opposite party no.1, who happens to
be the brother of the opposite party no.3-victim. Charge-sheet in this case has been filed fo
r the aforesaid offence against the petitioner.
Allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner stated to have ki
dnapped the opposite party no.3-victim minor girl, who happens to be the sister of the opposit
e party no.1-informant.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opp
osite party no.3-victim was above 18 years old on the date of occurrence and she in her own vo
lition left her house and came to the house of the petitioner, as they were in love. He furthe
r submits that the petitioner and opposite party no.3-victim being married now leading a happy
conjugal life and a female child was born into their wed-lock. In such premises, the continua
nce of the prosecution against the petitioner shall be an abuse of process of the court. There
fore, he submits to quash the prosecution against the petitioner.
No one appears for the opposite party no.3-victim.
No material is produced to indicate the fact that the opposite party n
o.3-victim is major and in her own volition she accompanied with the petitioner.
As it appears prima facie the opposite party no.3-victim was a minor o
n the date of occurrence. The opposite party no.3-victim has also not come forward in support
of the case and no material is produced indicating the fact that the opposite party no.3-victi
m is now living with the petitioner. In such premises, the contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to quash the prosecution is not acceptable. Accordingly, this CRLMC
filed stands dismissed.
However, reluctance of this Court to quash the prosecution on the afor
esaid ground shall not stand on the way of the petitioner to approach the court concerned for
quashment of the prosecution, if the material on record indicates that there was no sufficient
ground to presume that he has committed the offence alleged. In the event such a petition is
filed, the court concerned, taking into account the facts situation and also the law with rega
rd to framing of charge/ discharge, shall pass necessary order without being influenced by the
order of this Court.
With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed of being dismisse
d.
BJ
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the CRLMC filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner can claim quashing of prosecution on the ground of marriage and voluntary cohabitation with the alleged victim (a minor at the time of occurrence).
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite party no.1
Opposite party no.3-victim
BJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court