← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18902/2018dismissed

Satprakash v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2018-05-10Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary5 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 18902 of 2018(O&M) Date of Decision: May 10 , 2018.

Satprakash ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** LISA GILL, J.

This petition has been filed seeking further investigation as well as transfer of investigation in FIR No.656 dated 11.10.2016 under Sections 363, 366A IPC, registered at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that, the abovesaid FIR was registered on the petitioner's statement to the effect that his daughter aged 16 years had gone missing on 15.09.2017. Suspicion was raised against accused Lalit son of Bijender. It is to be noticed that after the prosecutrix went missing on 15.09.2017, she alongwith the accused Lalit filed a petition for protection before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 16.09.2017. The prosecutrix alongwith the said accused remained at the Protection Home till 28.09.2017. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the Child Welfare

-2Committee on 28.09.2017 wherein she disclosed that the accused Lalit is her friend and she had accompanied him on 15.09.2017. They solemnized marriage at New Delhi and thereafter stayed at a hotel. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 28.09.2017, the prosecutrix reiterated that she voluntarily left her home to solemnize marriage with the accused Lalit as her parents were against this marriage. She further stated that her date of birth was wrongly recorded in the school records.

After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 27.09.2017. Charge under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the 'POCSO' Act) was framed against the accused on 12.12.2017. Another statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 15.02.2018 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein allegations were raised against the accused. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution seeking permission to reinvestigate the matter. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2018. Aggrieved therefrom, this petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argues that the prosecutrix in this case has raised specific allegations against the accused in her subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 15.02.2018 (Annexure P8). Therefore, reinvestigation of the matter is imperative. It is thus prayed that impugned order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

-3through the file.

The learned trial court while taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically observed as under:- "4.

This case has been registered on the complaint of father of prosecutrix after she did not return home from the market on 15.9.2017. In his complaint her father had mentioned her age to be 16 years and he had also expressed suspicion regarding involvement of accused Lalit. After the prosecutrix went missing from her house on 15.9.2017, on 16.9.2017 she along with the accused Lalit filed a Protection Petition before Ld. Sessions Judge, Faridabad and as per documents available on record they remained under protection till 28.9.2017. Further in her statement before Child Welfare Committee recorded on 28.9.2017 the prosecutrix had disclosed that accused Lalit is her boy friend and that on 15.9.

2017 after meeting him at Metro station Mujessar they went to Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi where they had solemnized marriage and thereafter stayed in a hotel. It is further relevant to mention here that on 28.9.2017 the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also got recorded wherein also she had stated that she had voluntarily left her home to marry accused Lalit. That her parents are against the marriage and that her wrong date of birth has been recorded in the school. 5.

The prosecution has sought permission for further investigation on the ground that the prosecutrix had got recorded her second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the effect that she had suffered her earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C under the pressure of accused. But it is relevant to mention here that another statement of prosecutrix recorded by the police in the presence of legal aid counsel dated 3.10.2017 is also available on record wherein she has mentioned her age to be 16 years and has stated that on 15.9.2017 she had went with accused Lalit to Delhi for roaming and thereafter she solemnized marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, New

-4Delhi. The prosecutrix further disclosed that she remained in police protection from 16.9.2017 to 28.9.2017. That on 28.9.2017 she had returned to her parent's house. That as she was quite scared she could not get recorded her statement properly. The prosecutrix had further mentioned therein that she has been cheated and that she is ready for her medico-legal examination. Also in this regard a separate complaint of prosecutrix dated 3.10.2017 that accused Lalit had forcibly committed rape with her and that she is ready for medicolegal examination is on case file. In view of said statement of prosecutrix recorded by the police on 3.10.2017 neither she was medico legally examined nor her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was again got recorded by the police and thereafter challan against accused Lalit has been furnished by the police on 27.11.2017. 6.

From perusal of application for re-investigation of prosecution it is further revealed that it is only mentioned therein that some new facts have come after the prosecutrix has suffered her second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C but what are those new facts have not been specified. Keeping all the above facts in view, this court do not find any merit in the application moved by the prosecution for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, the application in hand is hereby rejected."

It is not in dispute that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stands presented against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Charge under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been framed against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad which calls for interference

-5by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the application, this petition is dismissed.

( LISA GILL ) May 10 , 2018.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No