Courts Should Be Cautious That Under Allegation Of Marriage, Victim Isn't Used As Shield To Escape From Offences By Accused

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• This case was heard by the bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal
• According to the facts of the case, the court applied the principle of prima facie in this case.
• The petitioner abused the process of law by obtaining the protection order from the court.

BACKGROUND OF CASE

• The petitioner made an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of FIR filed against them under sections 366, 376-D, 323, 342 IPC and section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act accused of abducting and raping a girl.
• The FIR was lodged by the victim herself stating that she was abducted by the petitioners and was assaulted and sexually abused by the petitioners.
• She also mentioned in her statement that when her brother filed her missing complaint, one of the petitioners forcefully got her married to another petitioner (Umashankar Maurya) in Arya Samaj Mandir.
• Her brother-in-law forced her to say that no action shall be taken against the petitioners. She also mentioned that she was already engaged and was going to get married in December 2021.
• The counsel for petitioners stated that Umashankar already married her and both of them made an application in High Court for protection which was allowed.
• The counsel for the victim stated that the victim’s statement was already recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that her recorded statement matched with what she mentioned in FIR.

COURT’S OBSERVATION

• The court said that as the FIR was registered first and the statement given by the victim matches with the FIR which was registered earlier, prima facie, this discloses that offence was committed by the petitioners.
• As the statement of the victim supported the FIR which was registered, the court held that petitioner no. 1 committed fraud by obtaining a protection order from the high court.
• The court needs to be cautious that under the garb of marriage, the victim isn’t used as a shield to escape from the offence committed.
• Keeping in mind the facts of the case, the court held that the petitioners firstly kidnapped the victim, then assaulted and sexually abused her, and due to the fear of police forcefully married the victim.
• They also obtained an order for protection from the High Court which is clearly an abuse of the process of law.
• The Hon’ble court dismissed the plea of the petitioners.

HOPE YOU FIND THE SNIPPET INFORMATIVE.

Questions

1. Should both the petitioners be liable for the abuse of the process of law?
2. Should the petitioners be charged for offence of rape and abduction even though he married her?