TARUN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28.1.2013, prosecutrix lodged a written complainton the basis of which FIR No. 19 dated 28.1.2013 was registered by the police at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, under the provisions of Section 376, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AS per the compliant, petitioner and the prosecutrix used to study in a school at Shimla till the year 1999-2000. Thereafter they lost contact with each other. In 2007, petitioner contacted the prosecutrix on her Mobile. Thereafter, till the year 2010, petitioner regularly maintained contact with Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? her on her Mobile. Prosecutrix and petitioner would freely talk on the Mobile. In the year 2011, petitioner met her at Shimla Public School, Shimla where she was teaching. Thereafter, both she and the petitioner kept on meeting at various places in Shimla. During this period, he proposed marriage, to which she agreed. She informed her parents, who in turn contacted his parents. For a period of two- three months petitioner's parents did not respond, despite the fact that petitioner was ready and willing to perform the marriage. Petitioner also expressed his such desire to his parents. When father of the petitioner did not respond, her parents contacted parents of the petitioner on telephone. At that time, her parents were assured that petitioner's father would visit Shimla and discuss the matter. However, such meeting could not fructify. Her father tried to contact the petitioner's father at Dharamshala, but on some pretext no meeting was held. Thereafter, petitioner proposed to the prosecutrix to solemnize their marriage through Court. He also asked the prosecutrix to leave her job, which she did. But petitioner did not contact her at Shimla for solemnizing the marriage nor did he visit Shimla. Prosecutrix fell quite ill and went into depression and became bed ridden. Thereafter when her father contacted petitioner's father, he asked her parents to visit Baijnath for further talks. When her parents visited Baijnath, it was agreed between the parents of the petitioner and the prosecutrix that marriage would be solemnized. In October, 2012, petitioner's mother fixed the date of marriage as 2nd May, 2013. But, however, on the day of KARVA CHOUTH talks of marriage were completely broken on the pretext that prosecutrix had changed her mind and that her parents wanted to get her married somewhere else. Since then neither the petitioner nor his parents have responded to any of the telephone calls. Also they have not discussed the issue of marriage. Under the guise of solemnizing the marriage, petitioner without the consent of the prosecutrix, forcibly developed physical relationship with her. This was so done in a house of a petitioner's friend at U.S. Club, Shimla.

(3.) PETITIONER , who is 28 years of age, is a permanent resident of Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. but works for gain as a Design Engineer in Frames Process and Energy, Pune (Maharashtra).