Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 1, 2010 Jaspreet alias Rozi …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been filed by Jaspreet alias Rozi, her father Amrik Singh and mother Sukhwant Kaur, residents of B/50/973, Gobind Nagar, Bhullar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, praying that case FIR No. 375 dated 17.7.2008, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, under Section 420 IPC along with all the further proceedings, be quashed. The above said FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2-complainant Turija. The FIR has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P1. The complainant/respondent No.2 submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, against Amandeep Singh son of Amrik Singh, Amrik Singh son of Inderjit Singh, Sukhwant Kaur wife of Amrik Singh, Rozi daughter Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 2 of Amrik Singh, residents of Gobind Nagar, Bhullar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Reena wife of Happy, Happy resident of Baroda, Dr. Satish Singh, Compounder Sonu working in Mahanagar Clinic, Batala. The subject of the complaint stated that the above said accused, having allured the daughter of the complainant on the pretext of marriage, had outraged her modesty, raped her and after she became pregnant they had not kept their promise of marriage by levelling false allegations to harm the reputation of the daughter of the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant stated that her husband is a heart patient. Her daughter Susan Stephen disclosed her that about two years ago Amandeep Singh son of Amrik Singh, resident of Gobind Nagar, who was employed as Compounder in the clinic of Dr. Satish in Mahanagar, Batala, in conspiracy with his family members, Dr. Satish and Compounder Sonu, had sexually exploited her by giving allurement of the marriage. The daughter of the complainant further told that Amandeep Singh took her to Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine and they have performed marriage by putting vermilion in her Maang. The ceremony of the marriage was also performed. Due to physical relationship, Susan Stephen, daughter of the complainant, became pregnant from the last two months. When Susan Stephen brought this fact to the notice of the family members of Amandeep Singh, instead of publicly accepting the marriage, they levelled the allegations against her, to humiliate her and to avoid marriage. Petitioner No.2 Amrik Singh, father of Amandeep Singh, submitted an application wherein he levelled the allegations against Susan Stephen daughter of the complainant, regarding her character to harass and humiliate her. However, the said application is Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 3 totally false. Amandeep Singh son of Amrik Singh, on the pretext of marriage, was having physical relations with the daughter of the complainant from the last two years. The family members had earlier consented to the marriage as Amandeep Singh used to take the daughter to his house. The daughter of the complainant further told her mother that from the last four-five days, Amandeep Singh switched off his mobile phone to avoid contact with her. Due to this attitude of the family of Amandeep Singh, the life of daughter of the complainant has been ruined. She also made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming certain tablets. Had the complainant not taken immediate steps, the daughter would have lost the life. The above said FIR reveals the following facts for the consideration of the Court:- A) Amandeep Singh and Susan Stephen, daughter of the complainant, had performed marriage at Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine. B) Due to physical relationship between Amandeep Singh and Susan Stephen, she had become pregnant and the pregnancy was about two months old. C) The physical relationship between Amandeep Singh and Susan Stephen continued for about two years. D) Amandeep Singh performed sexual intercourse with Susan, after extending promise of marriage. E) The parents of Amandeep Singh were aware about the relationship between Amandeep Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 4 Susan Stephen as she used to visit the house of Amandeep Singh. F) Amandeep Singh lateron had not kept the promise of marriage. G) Amrik Singh, father of Amandeep Singh, had not accepted the request of Susan Stephen to accept her in the family as wife of Amandeep Singh and had submitted an application levelling the allegation to mark the character of Susan Stephen. H) That Susan Stephen made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming tablets and she was saved due to the intervention of her mother. The above said FIR was investigated and an inquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Amristar City. As per the inquiry report, so submitted on 5.5.2008, Susan Stephen had shown the photographs of marriage and she was the consenting party to the sexual intercourse. The Investigating Officer concluded that no offence has been committed by the sisters of Amandeep Singh, namely Jaspreet alias Rozi, Reena, her husband Happy, who are residing at Baroda. It was further concluded by the Investigating Agency that the offence under Sections 420 and 376 IPC is made out against accused Amandeep Singh, his parents, Amrik Singh and Sukhwant Kaur. In the present petition, it has been prayed that Jaspreet alias Rozi is a student of M.Sc. (IT) Fourth Semester and she along with her parents was not aware about Amandeep Singh and he has been disowned by his parents. It is further stated that Susan Stephen is aged Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 5 about 27 years, whereas Amandeep Singh is aged about 22 years. It is further stated that Susan Stephen is appointed as a Receptionist in the hospital whereas Amandeep Singh was employed as a Compounder. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 4.12.2009, had passed the following order:- “...Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Sujan daughter of Turija (respondent No.2- complainant) married with Amandeep Singh son of Amrik Singh, petitioner No.1. A female child was also born out of the wedlock. They are residing together and leading a happy married life. Proxy counsel for respondent No.2 seeks an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel, Shri M.K. Dogra, Advocate, is indisposed today. List on 15.12.2009”. Thereafter, another Co-ordinate Bench, on 15.9.2010 admitted the petition and stayed the presentation of challan qua the petitioners. Broad features of the prosecution case have already been noticed above. Susan Stephen is, admittedly, a mature lady aged about 27 years. It is also the case of the prosecution that Amandeep Singh had performed marriage with Susan Stephen at Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine. For about two years, Amandeep Singh and Susan Stephen were having physical relationship (sexual intercourse) due to the consent given by her. Further the case of the prosecution is that she became pregnant Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 6 and delivered a female child. It is further case of the prosecution that Susan Stephen agreed to perform sexual intercourse with Amandeep Singh as he had assured her that he would perform marriage. The investigation has also revealed that the parents were not agreeing to the marriage. In Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar 2004(4) Recent Criminal Repots 972, it was held that where on promise to marry, sexual intercourse has occurred and the accused has not been able to keep his promise due to family pressure, offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, in Manish Kumar Jayant v. State & Another 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports 634 has held that where due to love affair between the boy and girl, physical relations, developed between the prosecutrix and the accused, as he had agreed to marry her, lateron refusal to marry will not constitute offence of rape. It will be pertinent to rely upon the following portion of the aforesaid judgment:- “...3. Whether these allegations will constitute rape can be examined with reference to two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely Uday v. State of Karnataka, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 99 (SC) : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 13 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1639 and Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2004(4) RCR(Crl.) 972 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 101 (SC) : (2005)1 SCC 88. In the first case of 2003 it was held that when a prosecutrix started cohabitation with the accused consciously Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 7 being deeply in love with the accused, although on a promise that he would marry her on a later date would not constitute the offence of rape. In the subsequent judgement of 2005 it was held that if on facts it was held that the prosecutrix had taken a conscious decision to participate in the sexual act only on being impressed by the accused on the promise to marry her but the promise of the accused was not false from its inception it would not be rape. In other words if the promise to marry the prosecutrix was only to seduce the prosecutrix to the sexual act, sexual intercourse on consent so derived would be an offence of rape. In the present case on the own showing of the respondent No. 2 in the FIR she and the petitioner were deeply in love and had been touring out of Delhi together and it is only subsequent to such relationship that the petitioner had promised to marry her which remained unfulfilled when the FIR was lodged. Following two decisions of the Supreme Court, I find that the offence of rape has not at all been made out in the FIR. The statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also confirms this position. The FIR, therefore, can be quashed...” The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Amritsar City, in his inquiry, has concluded that Susan Stephen and Amandeep Criminal Misc. No. M-22630 of 2008 8 Singh were having love affair and have gone to Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine where they performed marriage. Be that as it may, the case of Amandeep Singh is not before this Court. The present petition has been filed by the parents of Amandeep Singh and his unmarried sister Jaspreet alias Rozi. The only allegation in the investigation which has surfaced against Amrik Singh is that he had submitted an application to the Authorities questioning the character of Susan Stephen. This may constitute the offence of defamation and not the offence of Section 420 IPC. No overt act has been attributed to the present petitioners except that they were in knowledge of the fact that Amandeep Singh had performed marriage and Susan Stephen used to visit their house. This will not sufficient to conclude that the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against them. Hence, the present petition is accepted. The impugned FIR (Annexure P1), along with all the subsequent proceedings, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners. The police file, which was retained vide order dated 14.10.2010, be returned to learned counsel for respondent No.1/State. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 1, 2010 “DK”