The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, in FIR No.240 on the 20th of July 2017 under Sections 376(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, “commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.”, Section 506 IPC, “Punishment for criminal intimidation whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
The petitioner was also convicted under Section 3(1) (w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, “Punishments for offences of atrocities” and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, “Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine” in the Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Jaswant Singh and Honorable Mr Justice Sant Parkash on the 20th September 2021 in the case of Sonu Versus the state of Haryana and others [Criminal Writ Petition -3115-2021] Mr C.R. Dahiya represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Vivek Saini represented the State of Haryana, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.
The case relates to the facts wherein the petitioner prays before the Court for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari under article 226 of the constitution of India, which states that “empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.”
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, “determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction” for quashing or setting aside an order passed by respondent no.5 on the 19th of March 2021 which is recorded in the court as annexure (P-4). Respondent no.5 in the order had rejected emergency parole to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner humbly prays for directing the respondents to grant emergency parole to the petitioner for four weeks in order to attend the marriage of his sister which is to be held on the 3rd of April 2021.
The counsel for the petitioner conceded that this prayer cannot be answered because the marriage of the petitioner’s sister has already been performed on the 3rd of April 2021 and this petition will be rendered infructuous and the court cannot direct the respondents to release the prisoner on parole for an event which has already been performed.
The Honourable Court held that “In view of the above, present criminal writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the marriage of the petitioner’s sister has been already performed and therefore rejects to issue certiorari under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.”
Click here to read the judgment
Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham
