Need Judgement
RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE
(Querist) 12 March 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear Members,
Happy Holi first of all to all of u.
One of my client got married with a girl 2 years back without the consent of her parents in Arya Samaj Mandir. The father of girl lodged an FIR against my client u/s 363/376 IPC. The case is pending in session Court. Both, my client & that girl are living together since the date of marriage together as husband n wife.Now the father of the girl wants to witdraw his case. We appeared before the Hon'ble Court, then Hon'ble Court ordered for recording of his statement, but immediately then Public Prosecutor told that her father had filed school leaving certificate of the girl wherein her age is shown as 14 years on the date of marraige, but in Bone test the report of doc. states the age as 17-18 on the date of marriage. Onlast date of hearing the prosecutrix became hostile. Now the Judge is demanded for any judgement. Kindly consider it as urgent.Thanx in advance.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 12 March 2009
No judgement is necessary to decide the case. Your case is non compoundable case it requires enquiry without the evidences court cannot allow to withdraw the complaint. When her father is ready for compromise he must turn hostile.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 12 March 2009
The case has to end after trial alone.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 12 March 2009
Dear Rakhi,
i m not sure about sec 363 since that must depend upon the age factor which shall be taken into account as per the real age i.e. 17 or 18. but for sec 376, it bears no ground on the husband since 376 speaks that sex between husband & wife , where wife is 16 or above, cant be termed as rape. so plead this to quash that allegation.
and for kidnapping, if the father wishes to withdraw then there shouldnt be such hassles any further.
ARVIND JAIN
(Expert) 13 March 2009
"I agree with Mr. Rajeev".
WHY & WHAT BASIS SIR???????????
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 13 March 2009
Dear Rakhi,
You may refer recent judgement,i.e. dt.11-12-2008, of the SC reported in (2009)1 SCC 711 - Puttaswamy v/s State of Karnataka and another for the proposition that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of section 320 of the Cr.PC, there is scope for mutual agreement. Further, the concept of plea bargaining is also now fairly recognized.
With best wishes.
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 14 March 2009
I think Mr Manish singh is quite clear.
