Cr.Misc. M 6904 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 6904 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.11.2011 Gurjeet Singh petitioner vs U.T. Chandigarh. respondent Present:- Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Preetpal, PP for UT M.M.S.BEDI, J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of respondent No.2 M. Kaur ( name intentionally concealed) alleging that the petitioner developed intimacy with the complainant and developed sexual relation with her with a promise to marry her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of complainant are not substantiated by any material gathered during investigation and that the complainant has levelled false allegations of sexual exploitation. It has been claimed that there has been contradiction in the original version given by the complainant on 15.10.2009 in her complaint to S.S.P. Chandigarh. The petitioner along with his parents and brother has allegedly given beatings to the complainant on 12.2.2010, resulting in fracture of her right arm. Learned counsel for UT submits that the District Attorney has given a legal opinion in the case to the effect that the petitioner has dishonestly induced the complainant and had sexual intercourse on such inducement to marry her. The giving of consent by the complainant in such Cr.Misc. M 6904 of 2011 2 circumstances caused damage or harm to girl in body, mind and reputation, as such offence u/s 420 IPC is only made out and a wrong done to her does not fall within the mischief of Sections 375/376 IPC. I have gone through the opinion given by Deputy District Attorney on 6.8.2010 and the judgment reported as 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 183 of Patna High Court relied upon by the Deputy District Attorney while giving his opinion. The said judgment is a judgment of acquittal by an appellate court appreciating the evidence led before the trial court that the prosecutrix had given consent to the act of sexual intercourse fully knowing the nature and implication of such act and when she was fully aware that the person concerned was not yet her husband, even if he had proposed to marry her. On asking of the court, the investigating officer has handed over the entire police file. A perusal of the police file indicates that the a detailed investigation is being conducted by the investigating agency wherein besides recording the statement of the complainant, statement of one Sukhdarshan Kaur has been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. corroborating the allegations of the complainant. Statements of Harnek Singh, Sonia mother of complainant and father of the complainant Upkar Singh are indicative of false promises of the petitioner regarding marriage and acts of assault. The statement of Jang Bahadur, Receptionist of Himachal View Hotel, Sector 45, Chandigarh and the statement of owner of the hotel are indicative of the fact that the petitioner had shown complainant to be his wife while making entries in the record of the said hotel. The call details are also being collected during investigation. The statement of Dr. Sobti regarding allegation of termination of pregnancy, has also been recorded by the prosecution agency. There are few photographs of gathering indicating intimacy of the petitioner with the family members of the Cr.Misc. M 6904 of 2011 3 complainant. It will be pre-mature at this stage to ignore all the evidence, which is being collected by the prosecution agency and to rely upon the opinion of the Deputy District Attorney, given by him by applying a wrong authority and by not even referring to the evidence collected. It will also premature at this stage to observe whether sexual exploitation with a false promise of marriage and by representing that a person is husband of the complaint, would attract the provisions of Section 375 IPC warranting trial and conviction u/s 376 IPC. The minor discrepancies referred to by counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient enough to discard the entire investigation conducted by the investigating officer. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. November 17 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE