TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 65 dated 9.8.2012 under Section 376, 420, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Gurdaspur.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, in brief, is that in the year 2007, prosecutrix met the petitioner in the house of Sanjeev Kumar. The petitioner showed his willingness to perform marriage with the prosecutrix. At that time, sweets were also distributed as the marriage of the petitioner was settled with the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner developed physical relations with the complainant on the pretext of marriage. However, the petitioner had refused to perform marriage with the complainant.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. However, the factum of marriage of the complainant with Puran Chand is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that complainant had got divorce from her husband Puran Chand in December 2010.