PRANAY JANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application prayer is made for quashing of a proceeding being Tamluk P. S. Case No. 86 of 2006 dated 06-05-2006 under Section 417/420/376 IPC corresponding to G. R. Case No. 302 of 2006 now pending before learned CJM, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk.

(2.) THE opposite party no. 2 who has been served with notice but did not appear lodged a complaint against the present petitioner and his parents alleging that, when the complainant was a Higher Secondary student she got herself acquainted with the accused No. 1 as both of them were under a same tutor and that, the accused No. 1 in the year of 2003 proposed to the complainant to marry her though the complainant at that stage did not accede to the proposal of the accused No. 1. The complainant told him that she would prosecute further studies and her negotiation for marriage would only be done by her parents and guardian and that, at the instance of the complainant the accused no. 1 met her father's sister and her husband who are the witnesses No. 5 and 6, and the accused No. 1 agreed to her proposal for the wedlock with the complainant. Both her father's sister and her husband advised the accused no. 1 to meet the parents of the complainant and advanced the proposal of marriage with the complainant and that during that period, the accused no. 1 wrote a good number of love letters to the complainant and in July 2003, the accused no. 1 met the parents of the complainant in the presence of her father's sister and her husband, her aunt and that of her husband and proposed to them to marry the complainant. The parents and other kins told the accused no. 1 to have a dialogue with his parents before finalizing the proposal. The accused no. 1 told the complainant and his kins that he already had discussion with his parents to marry the complainant, and since then he used to meet her very frequently at the Mecheda Railway Station while the complainant was in her way to Bagnan college and the accused tried to have physical relation with the complainant and wrote a number of letters seeking her permission for co-habitation, and that, one evening in July, 2005 while the complainant was alone in her home, the accused no. 1 came to complainant's paternal house and promised the complainant to marry her very soon and induced her to have physical relation with him, and that, though the complainant was not agreeable till the marriage is completed the accused no. 1 could impress her that the marriage with her was only a matter of days and she should rely upon him and have physical relation with him at that moment, and that as the complainant relied upon the promise of the accused no. 1 exploited the advantages and had co-habitation with the complainant on several occasion in her paternal house while her parents were absent, and that after that incident the complainant urged the accused no. 1 to finalize the date of marriage as early as possible, and that, being afraid of the aforesaid cohabitation without the knowledge of the parents the complainant asked her parents to have a dialogue on the proposal of wedlock with the parents of the accused no. 1 at the earliest, and then the father of the complainant contacted the parents of the accused, accused no. 2 and 3; and after negotiation the parents of the accused no. 1 along with him came to the house of the complainant on 15th August, 2005, and thus the parents of the complainant met the accused no. 2 and 3, the parents of accused no. 1, and invited them to come to the paternal house of the complainant to finalize the date of marriage, and that on 28th August, 2005 Sunday the parents along with their son, the accused nos. 2,3 and 1 came to the paternal house of the complainant while the complainant, her parents, complainant's father's sister and her husband, aunt and her husband were present and told them that the complainant is their only choice to take her to their house as the wife of their only son but told the complainant her parents and other kins that as they were to remodel their house, the date of marriage will be fixed in January/february, 2006, and that after the aforesaid meeting of both the sides, the accused no. 1 would very often come to the paternal house of the complainant and as complainant's parents took him as their son-in-law, the accused no. 1 along with his photographer friend came to stay at the paternal house of the complainant. The complainant taking the accused no. 1 as her husband during the absence of her parents and at the instance of the accused no. 1 had intercourse with him on several occasion and at the request of the accused no. 1 a good number of photographs of the close posture of the complainant and accused no. 1 were taken. This continued for months, and in February, 2006 the complainant and her parents asked the accused no. 1 to fix up a date for a meeting with their parents to finalize the date of marriage but the accused no. 1 tried to evade. Her father and her aunt's husband went to the paternal house of the accused no. 1 on 26-02-2006 and as per their previous assurance requested the parents of the accused no. 1 to fix up a date of marriage while the accused no. 1 was also present but to their surprise the accused nos. 1,2 and 3 denied having made any promise of marriage In this situation the complainant along with her father's sister and her husband met the accused no. 1 at Mecheda the complainant asked the accused no. 1 the reason for denial of the proposal of marriage in between them. The complainant also asked him why the accused no. 1 on the plea of promise marriage fraudulently enjoyed her and had intercourse with her on occasion and took photographs in closed postures with her. The accused told them that, all those were to enjoy complainant for his physical pleasure and he would never marry her, and that the promise of marriage as given by the accused no. 1 which the complainant believed in body and mind was ultimately proved to be fraudulent and as a result the complainant sacrificed her virginity at the assurance of the accused no. 1.

(3.) LEARNED CJM sent the petition to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. The parents of the petitioner by filing a revisional application being CRR No. 2683 of 2008 prayed for quashing of the proceeding as against them and this court by order dated 15 of February, 2008 quashed the proceeding as against them only.