CRM No. 36357 of 2010 & 1 CRM-A-855-MA of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. 36357 of 2010 & CRM-A-855-MA of 2010 Date of decision:- 01.10.2010 Suman ......Appellant Vs State of Haryana and another. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2008 by which the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. We have perused the judgement and order of the learned trial Court in respect of which leave to appeal has been prayed for. From the materials on record it appears that the prosecutrix is a widow and an earning lady whereas the accused/respondent is a student. The husband of the prosecutrix is no more and there appears to have developed a relationship between the two four to five months prior CRM No. 36357 of 2010 & 2 CRM-A-855-MA of 2010 to the lodging of FIR. The evidence on record also goes to show that incidents of sexual intercourse took place at the residence of the prosecutrix and that too at her instance. The same indicates that she had been a consenting party. However, in course of the relationship it appears that the accused/respondent had declined to marry the prosecutrix leading to the filing of the FIR. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court held that the offence alleged has not been proved. Specifically relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2007(4), RCR (Criminal), 51, the learned trial Court held that in the present case the materials on record did not establish that the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix from the very beginning of the relationship. The view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be justified on the materials on record. Leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court as prayed for, therefore, is declined. CRM No. 36357 of 2010 As the application for leave to appeal is not being entertained, no orders on the condonation application will be called for. CRM-A-655-MA of 2010 In view of the order passed today in the application for leave to appeal, this appeal is not entertained. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 01.10.2010 JUDGE Amodh