Supreme Court of India
VISHWAS BHANDARI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. on 3 February 2021
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 59
VISHWAS BHANDARI
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 03, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Complaint filedunder ss.363 and 366-A IPC against one ‘V’ and the appellant thatthe two accused had kidnapped her daughter by alluring her forthe purpose of marriage – In the proceedings before the court, thecomplainant appeared and recorded statement restricting herallegations in respect of ‘V’ only while prosecutrix deposed thataccused ‘V’ had married her and she has two children with him –Trial court acquitted ‘V’ – Appellant invoked the jurisdiction ofHigh Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings,inter alia, on the ground that neither the prosecutrix nor thecomplainant levelled an iota of allegation against him in respect ofabduction of the prosecutrix – High Court dismissed the petition –On appeal, held: The evidence of the prosecutrix and thecomplainant before the Court showed that there was no allegationwhatsoever against the appellant – Main allegation was against‘V’ but the prosecutrix married him and gave birth to two childrenout of that wedlock – Thus, in the absence of any allegation andevidence against the appellant, the continuation of proceedingsagainst him was nothing but an abuse of process of law –Proceedings against him are quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The main allegation was against ‘V” but theprosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to twochildren out of that wedlock. In the absence of any allegationagainst the appellant, the continuation of proceedings against himis nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since there is noevidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated againsthim on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Courtwas, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against theappellant. [Paras 9, 10][62-C-D]
A
B
CDEF
GH
ACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 105 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2020 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M 24722 of 2020 [O&M]
Viraj Kadam, Ms. Soumya Dutta, Mrs. Priyata Chakraborty, AjaivirBSingh, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Siddhartha Jha, Gazab Singh Chauhan, Ms.Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
CLeave granted.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated16.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana whereby the petition filed by the appellant underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] was dismissed.D
2. An FIR No. 31 dated 27.1.2013 was lodged by Rashmi Adhen,wife of Mohanjit Singh for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-Aof the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]. The allegations were that her eldestdaughter, 17½ years of age, went out of her house on 23.1.2013 at about12 noon in the absence of the complainant and her husband. It wasEaverred that Vikram Roop Rai and the present appellant had kidnappedher daughter by alluring her for the purpose of marriage.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a report under Section173 Code was filed against Vikram Roop Rai. Furthermore, proceedingsfor declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender were also initiated.
F
4. In the proceedings before the Court, the complainant appearedand recorded her statement while restricting her allegations in respectof Vikram Roop Rai only. In the cross-examination, she inter-alia statedto the following effect:
“My daughter has solemnised marriage with accused Vikram onG4 August 2013 both the families had solemnised the said marriageat Gurudwara Sahib of Khera Road, Phagwara. I have attendedthe said marriage, we prepared CD and also clicked photos of the H
1 For short, the ‘Code’
2 For short, the ‘IPC’
said marriage. Thereafter, Lunch was served at Poonam Hotel,Phagwara. After marriage, my daughter and accused Vikramstayed with us.”
5. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-2. She deposed that accusedVikram Roop Rai had taken her on the promise that he would marry her.He took her to his parents’ house and kept her in his house until she was18 years of age and only then contacted her parents. It was on 24.7.2013that the accused Vikram Roop Rai called her parents and it was decidedthat both of them would get married. Subsequently, she married theaccused on 4.8.2013.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated13.8.2013 held that neither the complainant nor the prosecutrix havedisclosed the exact date of birth. Further, no birth certificate was producedto show that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years on thealleged date of occurrence of abduction. The learned trial court recordedthe following finding:
“21. Although the prosecutrix PW2 in her examination in chiefhas stated that the accused had abducted her on the pretext thathe will solemnized marriage but how and where abducted her hasnot been explained by her. Admittedly it is stated by her that wasknown to her. There is nothing in the statement of this witnessthat she tried to escape from the clutches of the accused or thatshe was forced to marry him. Even if it is presumed that theprosecutrix was minor but if she leaves her parents home in everycase it cannot be held that it is the accused who has possiblyabducted the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was known to the accused,went with him, married him with consent of both families, hadtwo children with him, then, it cannot be said that she was takenout forcibly from the custody of her lawful guardian, as it is notproved that she is minor as non production of birth certificateissued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Jalandhar, gives rise tothe presumption that, the same could have shown her to be majorand hence doubt creeps into the version of the prosecution, thebenefit of which is to be given to the accused.”
With these findings, the accused Vikram Roop Rai was acquitted.
7. It is thereafter, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the HighCourt for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, inter alia, AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aon the ground that neither the prosecutrix nor the complainant havelevelled an iota of allegation against the appellant in respect of abductionof the prosecutrix. In fact, the prosecutrix married Vikram Roop Rai,the main accused and had two children with him. Such marriage waswith the consent of their families. Since there is no shred of evidenceagainst the appellant, therefore, continuation of proceedings against theBappellant would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainantbefore the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever againstCthe appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but theprosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two childrenout of that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant,we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing butan abuse of process of law.
D10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedingsinitiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The HighCourt was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant.
11. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The order passed bythe High Court is set aside and the entire proceedings consequent toFIR No. 31 of 2013 and charge sheet stand quashed.
E
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed
F
G
H