The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a woman’s plea to prosecute the parents and grandmother of the man she accused of rape on a false promise of marriage, holding that her claims of their alleged assurance did not constitute abetment.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court turned down a woman’s request to prosecute the parents and grandmother of the man she accuses of rape, allegedly carried out on the false promise of marriage.
The complainant had claimed that the man’s family members had also assured her that the man would marry her, and therefore abetted his false promise.
However, Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal held that mere mention of the family members’ involvement in the FIR and the complainant’s trial statement does not suffice to take cognizance against them.
The Court said,
”The act of sexual intimacy was only between the prosecutrix and [xxx] and assurances given by respondents No. 3 to 5, the parents and grand mother of [xxx], cannot, by any stretch of imagination be considered sufficient to take cognizance against them for the offence under Section 376 IPC or any other offence,”
After the police filed a chargesheet naming only the man, the woman sought, under Section 358 (Power to Proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), that the trial court summon the man’s family members as additional accused.
The trial court dismissed that application on January 22, and the woman then appealed to the High Court.
Justice Singh observed that the power to summon additional suspects is discretionary and exceptional.
The Court explained,
“It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Court is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner,”
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
The High Court agreed with the trial judge’s finding that there was no prima facie case against the family members to summon them as additional accused, concluding that the trial court’s order was “logical, legal and does not call for interference.”
The revision petition was therefore dismissed.
Advocate Kamal Narula appeared for the petitioners, and Additional Advocate General Kunwarbir Singh represented the State of Punjab.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
