High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22050/2024allowed

Happy v. State Of Haryana

2024-05-30Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra6 pages

!"#"

$% & '

()

% *+ ,- ,

! "

# $$$

, ) .+/% %

'() * *

,-.

& "/ ,-!

23.09.2023 Cheeka, District Kaithal 363 and 366 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 376 read with 511, 506 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 18 of POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) 1

on 23.09.2023, a written complaint was filed by the complainant 'K' (name withheld) alleging that the victim 'V' (name withheld) who was his grand daughter had gone missing from the house on 23.09.2023 without informing anyone. She had also taken along with her, some gold and silver ornaments and cash amount of Rs. 65,000. He raised suspicion that she had been enticed away by the petitioner and his two

friends. Initially, a case under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Subsequently, the victim and the petitioner moved a petition bearing CRWP No. 9609-2023 before this Court and notice of the said petition was given for 28.09.2023. The matter was adjourned to 09.10.2023. On 28.09.2023, itself, the victim and the petitioner were taken to police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh, wherein their statements were recorded and they were sent along with their respective family members. As per the allegations, on 04.10.2023, the victim was brought to the police Station by her grand father. Then her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

was recorded before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghula wherein she levelled allegations that the petitioner had been harassing and extending threats to her and on his asking, she had left her house on 23.09.2023. She also levelled allegations that he had developed physical relations against her wishes at Chandigarh. She, however, refused to get her medical examination conducted. On the basis of her statement, offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 and 506 of IPC as well as Section 18 of POCSO Act, 2012 were added. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 16.10.2023. After conclusion of usual formalities of investigation, challan was presented and the petitioner is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

The petitioner

+ & &

* "

" .

345(151' ' - "

& .

(335151(

.+ + ,-&

(54+

& +

+- " & . & .

& ."

6 - +&

115)151("

1(5)151( " "

* +

& &

++& .

..&

+ . + &

. "

5)35151( 8 - +&

( * +

. * +

+ .

+ . 9.

& . - +

" "

."&:

38' * *+

& .

..&

+& "

.- +

& & . +

% .!

;

38' * * +

. .

+ ..

." ".

1;5)151(- + . "

& 9.

+ .

9 & & % +

& " 4 -

& + +

The facts which emerge out of the record and which are not in dispute are that the victim had attained the age of majority on 22.09.2023 and on the very next day, she had left her house along with some cash, gold as well as silver ornaments and just a few days thereafter, she along with the petitioner had filed a petition seeking protection of life and liberty from her family members. It has also come on record that since no protection was

granted to the petitioner and the victim by the High Court on 28.09.2023 and the case was adjourned and as the family members of both the parties had reached there, therefore, they were taken to police station Sector 3, Chandigarh and had recorded their respective statements. At that time, the victim not only stated that she had left her house with her own sweet will and had gone to Patiala and that it was she who had called upon the petitioner to come so that they could perform marriage but she had also refused to get her medical examination conducted on that date and even subsequently on 04.10.2023, though she had recorded a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on that date. However, the very fact that she had been eliminated by her own close relatives i.e.

her maternal uncle and aunt shortly thereafter, is apparently indicative of the fact that her relationship with the petitioner was not acceptable to her family members and that also appears to be a cause of her murder. It is a debatable question as to whether the provisions of Section 363 of IPC have been at all attracted as the very basic ingredient for commission of this offence i.e. the victim being a minor is missing since she was a major as on the date of occurrence. So far as the allegation that the petitioner made an attempt to commit rape upon her is concerned, the victim had refused to get her medical examination conducted on 28.09.2023 and even on 04.10.2023. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not in consonance with her statement as recorded before the police on 28.09.2023 at the time of registration of DDR No.

61 at police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. There is no basis for the contention that the petitioner may intimidate the witnesses.

0 16.10.2023. The trial is likely to take time. At this stage, it is not appropriate for this Court to give any opinion about the merits of the case which, however, raise many debatable issues. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussed facts and circumstances of the present case, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the nature of the allegations as levelled against him & "

. ..

. -.

&9 & &

+ %

> &

* ?

+ > 0 +

, 2

& '

()