Lakhvir Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
!
"## %
& '(# )#(
*##
+
)
!
*, -
(
.
*$
*
/#0 1 2 "
!
( .##
+# #nstant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.105 dated 26.12.2016 registered for offence under Section 376, 420, 201, 120-B IPC, 1860, at Police Station SGN Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, Punjab, Annexure P-3, and all subsequent proceedings including charge-sheet dated 20.08.2021, Annexure P-12.
As per the version of the prosecution, FIR, Annexure P-3, has been registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix and reads as under:-
! "#$ $ % & '
(
)* +
,-.
, )(
* &+ /
&+ + 1+
+
+
*
* +
+ * ++ * 25533
)55 53 + 1 1+
3
0-+ 8
9
3 7: 3
!!
/
%8 / 1
+ $* % * /3 "3
; % * / + ! * $
&
+
8
* 8
*
. ++ * <
/
/ 3
/
( &
+3 )
.
+ 8
-
+
8
3 )
-
. =
*3
& & - 37 3 &
+
.+
+3 )
) "
) 2(
08 +
>-3 +
!
+ 8 1?
* 8 +
.
08
>-3 )
8 *
*
.* + @
3 8 @+
*
) +
A& B3 )
8 @+
3
+ ++ +
8 /
8
/ C 8 ; $ 8
-
,
+
8 A0
0B3 ;
"
+
+
+ ) + ,
3 )
$
8
8 +
'
+
*3
8
3
3
3
3
8
@
*. - )
& * 2 * 8-
"
++ /3
)+ * A B
. * + 3
1
+
3 )
2
8 +
8- + 0 8-
+
+ *
/ 8 -
- 8*
8 * *
- *
*+
3 ++
8
+
++ C ++
8
-
*
+ 0
0 * 3
+
8
+3 ! "
-
* (3
%+
)+ &+ 3
*
3
+ - *
3 8
*<
8
- + +
7
!+ .
!+
* ++
/
+
..
+3
7 !
) .+
/++3
@
8
+
- -
+
+ *3 9
-
. *
2
/ 3 / 8
+?
+.
@
-*
'+ &
/
9<3 ++
+ - 8+
. *
.
3 9
# .
++ '+ 8 *
0
/ #
)+
&+ 3
++ + +
+. *
+* 3 %+ 8 ,-
/
/
8
+
)+ * 0/3 ) #
+
*
+-
)+ &+
D3 +
+
*
&+
+
++3
#
#
*
*
++
* 8
*
) !.3
#
* 3
3 )
.
* .
*3
+
3 @
* '+
&
/ 3 )
+ 3
8
* +
= 3
- 8
*
3 &
++
8
++
8
8
8
= 3
8
8
-
* 3 )
= .
* *.
3: D=
#D =::=#$7
= # =$#
*
- +
+ + 8
* %
+
+ +
*
+
+ &
"
%
+ +
3 & +
&
? +
0<
3
+
1+3
-+3 +
+ *
+
*
* +
0
+
.
*
(+
+
!
/E$= # =$#
DF
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner married the prosecutrix and has placed reliance upon a certificate dated 22.04.2011, Annexure P-1, issued by a Gurudwara Sahib, as well as letter dated
22.04.2011, Annexure P-2, and affidavit dated 29.10.2016, Annexure P-13, jointly signed by both of them. He has placed reliance upon interim order dated 23.08.2021 passed by this Court in CRM-M-34144-2021 titled as Anupam Mahajan and others versus State of Punjab and another, judgment of Chhasttisgarh High Court in Dilip Pandey and others versus State of Chhattisgarh, Law Finder Doc ID 1872414 and judgment of the Supreme Court in Independent Thought versus Union of India and another Law Finder Doc ID 908220 to urge that sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his own wife not below the age of 18 is not rape and the Court has erred in taking cognizance of the allegations leveled in the complaint. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner.
It is evident from the challan filed by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner arranged a fake marriage with the prosecutrix and by taking advantage of her innocence, repeatedly committed sexual assault upon her from 2011 to 2016. It has been further found that the prosecutrix became pregnant thrice and he repeatedly forced her to abort the child and thus destroyed the evidence. He misled her and kept on reassuring her that he will take her home and inform his family about their relationship. After the prosecutrix expired in a road accident in January, 2017, he filed an application seeking discharge which has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 10.08.2021, Annexure P-11, and charge has been framed against the petitioner on 20.08.2021, Annexure P-12, under Sections 376, 420 and 201 IPC.
The prosecution evidence has started and a Head Granthi has appeared in the witness-box and deposed that there is no record pertaining to the marriage of the prosecutrix with the petitioner in the Gurudwara Sahib, Zirakpur. The documents being placed reliance upon by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the marriage would, therefore, be a subject matter of trial.
4 Allegations leveled in the impugned FIR do make out commission of a cognizable offence. Not only this, it is further apparent from the challan that the petitioner never co-operated with the investigation, rather he was declared as a Proclaimed Offender by the Court of JMIC, Bathinda. Application for discharge having been dismissed, challan having been presented and the trial being underway, the instant petition seeking quashing of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.
It is clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
%
+
5(( ). '#6
768
5(( .
-9
768