Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2406 (RAJ)

Mahipal Singh @ Bunty v. State of Rajasthan

2008-10-24

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision the accused petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Jaipur (for short `the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 25/2008 by which the petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC. (2). Brief facts of the case are that prosecutorix Poonam Singh submitted a written report at P.S. Mansarovar, Jaipur regarding commission of rape etc., by petitioner. (3). On the basis of the above written report, the police registered an FIR against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 323, 376, 493, 353 and 406 IPC. (4) The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence u/Ss. 354 and 376 IPC. (5). The trial Court after hearing the accused petitioner framed charge against him for the offence under Section 376 IPC vide order dated 18.7.2008. (6). The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 18.7.2008 has preferred instant revision. (7). Mr. Suresh Sahni, counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has acted contrary to the mandate of law and have completely ignored the Chapter of XVIII of Cr.P.C. ranging from section 225 to 228 which was enacted by the legislature on the ground of providing a valuable safeguard to the accused. There was not even any remotely ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 376 IPC. (8). Per-contra Mr. D.D. Sharma, Public Prosecutor vociferously controverted the aforesaid arguments and submitted that a bare perusal of preliminary report, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of prosecutorix Poonam Singh clearly reveal that accused petitioner put the prosecutorix under misconception of facts and solemnized marriage in temple fraudulently and repeatedly, she made sexual relations with her. Prosecutorix Poonam Singh when made pressure of marriage upon accused petitioner then he solemnized fraud marriage in temple and kept her for 10 days at Mansarovar's house and she is pregnant for one month. He submits that as per the custom of both the parties `saptpadi' is required for solemnization of a legal and valid marriage. The accused petitioner obtained consent of prosecutorix after keeping her in misconception of facts. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the order of framing charge dated 18.7.2008 passed by the trial Court. (9). He submits that as per the custom of both the parties `saptpadi' is required for solemnization of a legal and valid marriage. The accused petitioner obtained consent of prosecutorix after keeping her in misconception of facts. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the order of framing charge dated 18.7.2008 passed by the trial Court. (9). In support of his case learned Public Prosecutor has cited a judgment reported in 2001 Criminal Law Journal Page 1723 titled as Om Wati & Anr. vs. State through Delhi Admn. & Ors. The relevant part of the judgment runs as under:- "12. We allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the High Court and upholding the order of the trial Court. We would again remind the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law." (10). I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record including the judgment cited by the Public Prosecutor. (11). From the bare perusal of the order impugned, as also statements of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the accused petitioner put prosecutrix under misconception of facts and committed rape with her. From the facts it is clear that accused petitioner solemnized the marriage fraudulently so as to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thus, the trial Court has rightly passed the order of framing charge dated 18.7.2008. (12). In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. Stay (13). In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands dismissed.