IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP (M) No. 781/2018

.

Date of decision: 6.7.2018

Chandan Kumar …… Petitioner

Vs.

State of H.P. ….. Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner:

r Mr. N. S. Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Thakur Mr. Sudhir
Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

Investigating Officer/ASI Dinesh
Sharma, Women Police Station,
Mandi, District Mandi.

Petitioner produced in custody of

HHC Ghanshyam and HHC Dhani
Ram, Police Line Mandi.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Oral)

The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR

No. 31/2018, dated 11.5.2018, registered at Women Police

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

07/07/2018 23:01:45 :::HCHP
…2…

Station, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. under Section 376 IPC and

Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

.

2012.

2 This Court vide order dated 5.7.2018 had directed

the petitioner and the victim as also their respective parents to

remain present before this Court on 6.7.2018 on the

representation made by the petitioner that he had informally got

3
r to
married to the victim and it was the expressed consent of both

the families of the parties.

Admittedly, the FIR in this case has not been lodged

by the victim, but appears to have been registered at the

instance of the Child Welfare Committee, Mandi.

4 As regards the victim, she appeared before this Court

donning bridal chura and vermilion on her forehead by parting

hair and claimed that she had already got married to the

petitioner and that is why she was donning bridal chura and

vermilion, which is otherwise put on by a Hindu married

woman.

5 As regards the family members of the victim, they

have specifically stated that the petitioner is their son-in-law

07/07/2018 23:01:45 :::HCHP
…3…

and immediately on his release, they would formally solemnize

the marriage of their daughter (victim) with the petitioner.

.

6 Thereafter, this Court had the occasion to interact

with the parents of the victim and sister of the petitioner, who

too stated that immediately on release of the petitioner, his

marriage would be solemnized with the victim.

7 The records produced by the investigating agency

reveal that the victim has nowhere claimed of the offence, for

which the petitioner has been charged and rather claimed

herself to be madly in love with the petitioner. Even when the

statement of the victim was recorded before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Mandi, under Section 164

Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that she and the petitioner

were knowing each other for the past two years and would often

meet. Thereafter, they fell in love and out of love and affection

for the petitioner, she had entered into physical relation with

the petitioner, as a result whereof, she had become pregnant.

She went on to state that there was no fault on the part of the

petitioner for her pregnancy and she after deliberately and

willfully given deep thought though had decided not to

terminate her pregnancy. She further stated that she did not

07/07/2018 23:01:45 :::HCHP
…4…

want the petitioner to be prosecuted as she wants to get married

with him.

.

8 Bearing in mind the specific stand taken by the

victim that she has already got married to the petitioner, no

offence of sexual assault can be said to be made out as the

marriage, though informal, between the parties at best can be

termed to be voidable and not void. That apart, it was not the

victim, who was at all aggrieved by any action of the petitioner

and lodged the FIR, but, as observed above, it was the Child

Welfare Committee.

9 Once there is no dispute between the parties, then

obviously the law cannot be so harsh, which would stand as a

wall between the parties because the law has to secure the

future of the parties and the criminal proceedings would only

cause irreparable harassment and hardship and may even

tarnish and spoil the reputation of the petitioner.

10 In the given circumstances, when the victim claimed

to have married the petitioner, there is no possibility of her

supporting the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial.

11 Therefore, in such circumstances, registration of

FIR, that too, at the instance of Child Welfare Committee and

07/07/2018 23:01:45 :::HCHP
…5…

not the victim would only cause untoward torture and

harassment apart from creating undue social and psychological

.

pressure over the parties, whereby the victim would be called in

the witness-box to depose against the petitioner and obviously

would not support the prosecution case. Hence, there is not

only remote or bleak but rather no possibility of the criminal

proceedings culminating in the judgment of conviction even if

permitted to proceed with. Rather, the continuation of criminal

proceedings may result in disharmony amongst not only the

petitioner and victim, but also their respective families, which is

not in the interest of the society as also the parties. The Court

has to make an endeavour to save and secure the future of the

parties so as to enable them and their family members to lead a

life with respect and dignity in the society.

12 In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (2008)

4 SCC 582, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized and

advised as under:-

“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in
disputes where the question involved is of a purely
personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the
term of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as
keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in
favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts,

07/07/2018 23:01:45 :::HCHP
…6…

grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that
the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective
and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense

.

approach to the matter based on ground of realities and
bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

13 In the given facts and peculiar circumstances of the

case, FIR No. 31/2018, dated 11.5.2018, registered against the

petitioner at Women Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is quashed and the

petitioner, who is in custody, is directed to be released

forthwith, if not required in any other case.

14 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to

the parties concerned by the Court Master today itself.

6th July, 2018 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge

07/07/2018 23:01:45 :::HCHP