Allowed

Rishab Lodh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Aug 2021C482/461/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 376/420/506 IPC and allowed a compounding application. The court held that since parties had married and were living happily, the compromise justified quashing despite the offence generally being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application allowed; entire criminal proceedings quashed and set aside.

Rishab Lodh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No.461 of 2020 With

¶3

Compounding Application (CRMA 896 of 2020)

¶4

Rishab Lodh ….. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents

¶7

Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶8

Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

¶9

This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the summoning order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the CJM, Tehri Garhwal under Sections 376/420/506 IPC in Crl. Case No.1083 of 2019 (Arising out of FIR No.109 of 2019 old FIR No.133 of 2019) along with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶10

The above-numbered compounding application has also been filed seeking to compound the offences between the parties on the basis of a compromise arrived at between them.

¶11

Facts, sans unnecessary details, are that an FIR was submitted by the respondent no.2 against the applicant, herein, with the allegations of committing rape on the false pretext of marriage.

¶12

It is submitted before the Court that now, in the changed circumstances, the parties have tied the nuptial knot and now, they are peacefully living as husband and wife; their marriage certificate dated

¶13

¶14

13.8.2019 issued by the competent authority is also on record as Annexure No.3; there is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given by the applicant to the second respondent was false at the inception; there were love affairs between the parties but the informant lodged the FIR in a hurry; the applicant was always ready to marry the respondent no.2.

¶15

Moreover, both the parties i.e. applicantRishab Lodh and respondent no.2- Smt. Kajal Lodh are also present before the Court through Video Conferencing being duly identified by their respective counsel; they clearly state before the Court that they both are major; they have solemnized the marriage and now they are living as husband and wife.

¶16

The instant case falls under Section 376 IPC. Although, the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is generally non-compoundable, but in the present case, the main allegation is that the applicant, on the false pretext of marriage, was exploiting the informant. However, now, they have married with each other and they together are living as husband and wife. Therefore, I am of the view that this matter deserves to be decided on the basis of amicable settlement arrived between the parties.

¶17

I am also fortified in my view with the ratio propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent case of “Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another” , reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1405.

¶18

Since, the origin of offence itself is declined by the parties in the compounding application, and now, they are living happily as husband and wife, as deposed by them before the Court, therefore, permitting continuation of trial would itself be a futile exercise.

¶19

¶20

In light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can safely be held that no offence is established against the applicant in the present case.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant application deserves to be allowed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶22

Resultantly, the Compounding application is allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. As a consequence, the entire proceedings pending between the parties shall accordingly stand quashed and set aside.

¶23

C482 application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 03.08.2021

¶26

Rdang

Rishab Lodh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishab Lodh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maherban Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shanwaj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Afzal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hoshiyar Singh Sajwan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shivam Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shahnavaz Vs State of Uttarakhand