CRM No.M-27820 of 2011 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM No.M-27820 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision : 13.9.2011 Mahender ........Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr.Surinder Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prays for quashing of FIR No.100 dated 19.4.2011 under Sections 328, 376(2)(g), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, placed on record as Annexure P-1, and subsequent proceedings. The allegation in the FIR is that while the prosecutrix was going to her village, someone called her from the backside. When the prosecutrix turned, she saw a van like vehicle came in which four boys were sitting. The said persons picked up the prosecutrix and put her in the vehicle. Sandeep son of Ved Pal (non-petitioner) could be recognized. Three other boys could not be recognized. The boys pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix and made her inhale some poisonous substance on account of which she became unconscious. It has further been alleged that Sandeep misbehaved with the prosecutrix earlier also. The prosecutrix was subsequently dropped. The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital for treatment. It has been alleged that Sandeep after abducting had committed rape alongwith his companions. The prosecutrix gave her statement under Section 164 of the CRM No.M-27820 of 2011 (O & M) -2- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 also on 3.8.2011. The petitioner has been named as one of the boys who accompanied Sandeep. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the prosecutrix was in love affair with Sandeep. The petitioner married outside his caste and therefore, the villagers are not happy with the conduct of the petitioner. The prosecutrix became pregnant on account of her relationship with Sandeep. When the said fact came to be known to the society in general, FIR has been lodged at the instance of family of the prosecutrix. It has been pleaded that in such circumstances, firstly, the petitioner has been falsely implicated because of his love marriage outside caste and secondly, offence of rape has not been committed at all and Sandeep was in a relationship with the prosecutrix. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. In a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it is required to be shown a prima facie that offence has not been committed. In the present case, there are specific allegations against Sandeep and the petitioner. The offence involved is gang rape. In such circumstances, in the face of statement of the prosecutrix, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter-affidavits so as to record that the petitioner was not involved in commission of offence. In view of above, no ground for interference in jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 13.9.2011 akm