CHANDIGARH: <\/em>The Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal<\/strong>, has refused to allow prosecution of the parents and grandmother of a man<\/strong> accused in a rape case based on an alleged false promise of marriage<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman had claimed that not only the man but also his family members had assured her that he would marry her. She argued that they supported and encouraged the false promise and should also face criminal charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court made it clear that the alleged sexual relationship was only between the woman and the accused man. The judge observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In this case, the police had filed a chargesheet only against the man. After that, the woman filed an application under Section 358<\/strong> (Power to Proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)<\/strong>, seeking that the trial court summon the man\u2019s family members as additional accused. The trial court dismissed her plea on January 22, following which she approached the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Nagpal explained that the power to summon additional persons as accused is not automatic. It is a serious and exceptional power. The Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After examining the record, the High Court agreed with the trial court\u2019s reasoning. It found that there was no prima facie case against the parents and grandmother<\/strong> to justify summoning them as additional accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Bench concluded,\u201d The order under challenge is logical, legal and does not call for interference,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and dismissed the woman\u2019s revision petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n