IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-10480 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 10, 2010 Kawaljit Singh @ Kanwaljit Singh @ Jeetu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashima Mor, Advocate, for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.385 dated 10.9.2009 under Sections 376, 420, 506, 313, 120-B registered with Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR itself admits in a way that the prosecutrix had consensual sex with the petitioner repeatedly. Learned counsel further states that in case the petitioner had contracted Crl. Misc. No. M-10480 of 2010 [2] marriage with the prosecutrix, no FIR would have come into being. Learned counsel also relies on a portion of the FIR which makes this fact evident. Learned counsel has pointed out that it is an admitted case of the prosecutrix that she came in contact with the petitioner in October 2005 and for the first time had sexual intercourse in December 2005 which arrangement continued at various places till lodging of the FIR. Relevant portion of the FIR needs to be extracted which reads as under:- “After that the process goes as he usually took me to various places and also comes to my house and use to do sex with me without my permission and forcibly after giving me threats. Later on in the mid of June 2006, he took me to Manali and his parents also accompany us and his sister and brother in law and his uncle aunty i.e. Joginder Singh and Pushpa Devi and we stayed there at Hotel Tej Palace and there again he did sexual intercourse with me and his parents and relatives also gave me assurance that they have accepted me as their daughter in law and on their assurances he took me in the room. There he did sexual intercourse in connivance of his parents, sister, brother in law and uncle aunty, but till date Jeetu is not marrying me and neither his parents nor his other relatives i.e. his uncle and aunty named Brij Mohan and Pushpa Devi are not doing marriage.” Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it would be a moot point for the Trial Court to consider whether the offence of sexual intercourse was consensual or otherwise. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age. Crl. Misc. No. M-10480 of 2010 [3] Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. (AJAI LAMBA) May 10, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?