JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition filed under Sec. 561-A Cr.P.C. read with all enabling provisions including Sec. 439 CrPC, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of FIR No.28/2010, registered at Police Station Thathri, Doda under Sec. 376 RPC, on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in the court of learned CJM, Doda on the following grounds:

(2.) During pendency of this petition, one more petition bearing CRMC No.662/2016 was filed by the petitioner No.1/victim and petitioner No2./husband for quashing of charge sheet arising out of FIR No.28/2010 on the following grounds:

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that way back in the year 2009 the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 being major out of their own sweet will, developed an intimate love affair. Due to their intimate relationship they came close physically many a times including the particular date of 25th of December, 2009 and grew fond of each other and they used to meet often. Thus, there arises no question of any forceful relationship from either side of the petitioners. Consequently, they solemnized marriage on 17/8/2012 and became parents to a beautiful son baby Avinash Kumar. Family of petitioner no.1, after coming to know about the love affair between the petitioners and discovering the factum of her pregnancy in the month of April, 2010, forced her to go to the concerned police to lodge an FIR against him. It is worthwhile to mention that the petitioner No.1 never disclosed to anyone including her parents but on being medically examined she was shown to have in running pregnancy for four months and it was in this background of the facts that she was made to go to the police and then magistrate for initiating action against the petitioner No.2. Despite the fact that she had an intimate love affair with petitioner No.2 and was never agreeing to take any action against him, the respondent concocted a story to falsely implicate petitioner No.2 for the heinous offence of rape and thus, an FIR No. 28/2010 dtd. 28/4/2010 came to be registered by the respondent i.e four months later in time after the date of alleged occurrence on 25/12/2009. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner No.2 was not guilty of any offence, the statement of petitioner No.1 came to be recorded by the learned trial court and Challan arising out of FIR No.28/2010 dtd. 28/04/2010 also came to be presented before the competent Court of law on 05/10/2010 against her wishes. Despite the fact that the petitioner No.2 was not found involved in the commission of alleged offence, even then, a charge sheet (Challan No.88/2016) arising out of F.1.R No.28/2010 dtd. 28/4/2010 came to be presented against him before the competent court of law on 05/10/2010. It is submitted that the ultimate trial of the case would result in vacuum and continuance of criminal proceedings would be having adverse effect on the matrimonial relation of the petitioners with each other. Thus, the petitioners pray that the impugned challan may very kindly be quashed.