WPCRL/618/2019 of SANDEEP B C Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition (Criminal) No. 618 of 2019

Sandeep

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

….Respondents

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bohara, A.G.A for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. No. 0117 dated 31.03.2019 under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C and Sections 5 and 6 of Protection from Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A and perused the records.

3. F.I.R in the matter was lodged on 31.03.2019 by the prosecutrix. According to it, prosecutrix is 16 years of age; she went to Dehradun to stay for few days with her sister where she met the petitioner and they soon become friends. One day, the petitioner took the prosecutrix to Mussorrie and under the promise to marry her, established physical relations with her. Subsequently, the prosecutrix realised that she was pregnant. She requested the petitioner to marry her. Thereafter, the petitioner completed the formality of marriage in the house of the sister of the prosecutrix. It is also recorded in the F.I.R that prosecutrix was minor, the petitioner got her date of birth changed in her Aadhar Card and prepared false affidavit as well, and took the original Aadhar Card. Not only this, petitioner thereafter kept the prosecutrix with him for period of two months in rented house

and continued making physical relations with her. Petitioner was already married at that time having child; there are other allegations as well with regard to the mother of petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that in the instant case petitioner has not cheated the prosecutrix; he in fact, had married her. Prosecutrix herself has given an affidavit revealing that she was major at the time of incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that, in fact, marriage got solemnized by the sister of the prosecutrix.

5. According to the F.I.R, the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years. It is categorically stated in the F.I.R that the petitioner got the date of birth of the prosecutrix changed in her Aadhar Card and prepared false affidavit. Petitioner was married and is person serving in Gorkha Battalion Range. According to the F.I.R, petitioner was having child at the time of incidence. It is also stated in the F.I.R that under mis-representation the petitioner established physical relations with the prosecutrix.

6. Perusal of the F.I.R., reveals commission of cognizable offence. It’s truthfulness and related issues cannot be examined in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the view that no interference as such is warranted in the case and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that directions may be issued so that bail application of the petitioner may be decided on the same day.

8. The writ petition is dismissed. In case the petitioner appears before the court concerned and file an application for bail, his

bail application may be considered as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

Shubham

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.05.2019