VISHWAS BHANDARI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 03-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
VISHWAS BHANDARI
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 03, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Complaint filed
under ss.363 and 366-A IPC against one ‘V’ and the appellant that
the two accused had kidnapped her daughter by alluring her for
the purpose of marriage – In the proceedings before the court, the
complainant appeared and recorded statement restricting her
allegations in respect of ‘V’ only while prosecutrix deposed that
accused ‘V’ had married her and she has two children with him –
Trial court acquitted ‘V’ – Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of
High Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings,
inter alia, on the ground that neither the prosecutrix nor the
complainant levelled an iota of allegation against him in respect of
abduction of the prosecutrix – High Court dismissed the petition –
On appeal, held: The evidence of the prosecutrix and the
complainant before the Court showed that there was no allegation
whatsoever against the appellant – Main allegation was against
‘V’ but the prosecutrix married him and gave birth to two children
out of that wedlock – Thus, in the absence of any allegation and
evidence against the appellant, the continuation of proceedings
against him was nothing but an abuse of process of law –
Proceedings against him are quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The main allegation was against ‘V” but the
prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two
children out of that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation
against the appellant, the continuation of proceedings against him
is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since there is no
evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against
him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court
was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the
appellant. [Paras 9, 10][62-C-D]
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 59
59
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 105 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2020 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M 24722 of 2020 [O&M]
Viraj Kadam, Ms. Soumya Dutta, Mrs. Priyata Chakraborty, Ajaivir
Singh, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Siddhartha Jha, Gazab Singh Chauhan, Ms.
Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated
16.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana whereby the petition filed by the appellant under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was dismissed.
2. An FIR No. 31 dated 27.1.2013 was lodged by Rashmi Adhen,
wife of Mohanjit Singh for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A
of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. The allegations were that her eldest
daughter, 17½ years of age, went out of her house on 23.1.2013 at about
12 noon in the absence of the complainant and her husband. It was
averred that Vikram Roop Rai and the present appellant had kidnapped
her daughter by alluring her for the purpose of marriage.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a report under Section
173 Code was filed against Vikram Roop Rai. Furthermore, proceedings
for declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender were also initiated.
4. In the proceedings before the Court, the complainant appeared
and recorded her statement while restricting her allegations in respect
of Vikram Roop Rai only. In the cross-examination, she inter-alia stated
to the following effect:
“My daughter has solemnised marriage with accused Vikram on
4 August 2013 both the families had solemnised the said marriage
at Gurudwara Sahib of Khera Road, Phagwara. I have attended
the said marriage, we prepared CD and also clicked photos of the
1 For short, the ‘Code’
2 For short, the ‘IPC’
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
said marriage. Thereafter, Lunch was served at Poonam Hotel,
Phagwara. After marriage, my daughter and accused Vikram
stayed with us.”
5. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-2. She deposed that accused
Vikram Roop Rai had taken her on the promise that he would marry her.
He took her to his parents’ house and kept her in his house until she was
18 years of age and only then contacted her parents. It was on 24.7.2013
that the accused Vikram Roop Rai called her parents and it was decided
that both of them would get married

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.