Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1105 (MP)

SHIVENDRA TRIPATHI v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-10-15

RAJENDRA MAHAJAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the applicant feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order dated 2-7-2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 55/2015, whereby the applicant is charged with the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n) and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The relevant and necessary facts for adjudication of this revision are given below :— 2.1. On 20-8-2014, the prosecutrix, who is the respondent No. 2 herein, lodged an oral report at Police Station Kotwali, Shahdol making allegations against the applicant that he came in close contact with her. He proposed to her. Thereupon, she told him that she got married in her childhood and she is the mother of a girl. The applicant told her that notwithstanding the aforesaid facts he would marry her. Thereafter, he had physical intimacy with her over two years. As a result of his cohabitation, she has become pregnant and is presently carrying two months old pregnancy. She disclosed him about her pregnancy. He insisted upon her to undergo abortion, but she refused to do so. Thereupon, he started giving her life threats and he has gone into hiding since long. His parents refused to give her his whereabouts. She has also alleged that earlier she became pregnant with his cohabitation. At that time, upon his insistence she had abortion. Upon her oral report, an F.I.R. is recorded against the applicant at Crime No. 517/14 under sections 376 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2.2. Upon completion of the investigation, the applicant is charge sheeted under sections 376 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2.3. After the committal proceedings, the case is registered as Sessions Trial No. 55/2015. 2.4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties over the framing of charges, the learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned order has held that there is prima facie evidence for framing of charges against the applicant under sections 376(2)(n) and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and has levelled the aforesaid charges against him. 2.5. Dissatisfied with the action of the trial Court in framing aforesaid charges against him, the applicant has filed this criminal revision. 3. 2.5. Dissatisfied with the action of the trial Court in framing aforesaid charges against him, the applicant has filed this criminal revision. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix gave a written application dated 23-8-2014 to the S.H.O. of the aforesaid police station praying that the applicant’s father Premraj has agreed to accept her as his daughter-in-law and the applicant is also ready to marry her. Therefore, she does not want any action by the police against him upon her police report dated 20-8-2014. It is also submitted by him that the same facts have been reiterated by the prosecutrix in her statement dated 23-8-2014 recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge had not taken into consideration the aforesaid documents in right perspective while passing the impugned order. If he had given due weightage to them, then the applicant would have been discharged under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error of facts and law by framing the aforesaid charges. Upon these submissions, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order and discharge of the applicant of the aforesaid charges on the basis of the aforesaid documents. In support of the submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366 , State of M.P. vs. Mohan Lal Soni, AIR 2000 SC 2583 , Uday vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639 , Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 203 , Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2753 and Hemant Choubey vs. State of M.P., 2015 (II) MPJR 62. 4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has contended that the prosecutrix in her letter dated 23-8-2014 and her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not state that she has made false allegations against the applicant. On the other hand, she has simply stated that she does not want any penal action against the applicant as he and his parents have agreed upon her marriage with the applicant. Thus, the prosecutrix’s allegations of her sexual exploitation upon the false promise of marriage and life threats upon her refusal to undergo abortion by the applicant are there. On the other hand, she has simply stated that she does not want any penal action against the applicant as he and his parents have agreed upon her marriage with the applicant. Thus, the prosecutrix’s allegations of her sexual exploitation upon the false promise of marriage and life threats upon her refusal to undergo abortion by the applicant are there. It is further submitted by him that the prosecutrix has made aforesaid allegations against the applicant in her case diary statement dated 21-8-2014. In view of the above, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error of law or facts by framing the aforesaid charges. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/prosecutrix has supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused entire material on record. 7. In the cases of State of U.P. vs. Naushad, 2014 Cr.L.J. 540 SC and Deepak Gulari vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (3) MPHT 82 SC, the Supreme Court has laid down the law that sexual intercourse/sexual exploitation on the false promise of marriage amounts to rape. Upon the perusal of the F.I.R. of the case and the case diary statement of the prosecutrix, I have found that in the aforesaid the prosecutrix has squarely stated that the applicant had sexually exploited her over two years on the promise of marriage despite her saying that she got married in her childhood, and she is the mother of a girl. Upon the aforesaid facts, the police have rightly registered the case against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Upon the meticulous and careful reading of the letter dated 23-8-2014 written by the prosecutrix to the S.H.O. of Police Station Shahdol and her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I have found that the prosecutrix has not stated overtly or covertly that she has levelled false allegations against the applicant. On the other hand, she has simply and guilelessly stated that the parents of the applicant and the applicant himself are agreed upon her marriage with the applicant, therefore, she does not want to prosecute him. Hence, the charges of rape and criminal intimidation are undeniably on record. On the other hand, she has simply and guilelessly stated that the parents of the applicant and the applicant himself are agreed upon her marriage with the applicant, therefore, she does not want to prosecute him. Hence, the charges of rape and criminal intimidation are undeniably on record. Resultantly, on the basis of the aforesaid, the applicant cannot be discharged in terms of section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, I am of the considered view that once the complainant/informant has set the criminal machinery of the State in motion by lodging a report of cognizable offence(s) then, further proceedings in the case cannot be stopped at his insistence because he has arrived at friendly understanding with the accused and he does not want any penal action against him. Otherwise, there will be a complete anarchy and the State’s criminal machinery will become a tool of whims and fancies of the complainant. Upon the aforesaid premises, the complainant cannot stop the prosecution of the accused of a cognizable case except as per provisions of section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, in the present case, the prosecutrix cannot stop the prosecution of the applicant because she has developed an understanding with the applicant. Thus, the trial Court is bound to conduct the trial of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code irrespective of the fact whether the prosecutrix would support the prosecution case or not at trial? 9. The law laid down in the first five rulings as mentioned in Para 3 of this order are not applicable in this case as they are distinguishable on facts. In the last citation, the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code has stated inter alia that she had lodged the report of rape and other offences against the applicant/accused, because he had come to her college and beat her with his shoes and tried to take her in the vehicle. Thereupon, this Court has held that in the case-offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix. However, all the remaining offences are prima facie made out as framed by the trial court. Thus, the law laid down in the said authority is also not applicable in the facts-situation of the present case. 10. However, all the remaining offences are prima facie made out as framed by the trial court. Thus, the law laid down in the said authority is also not applicable in the facts-situation of the present case. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmities with the impugned order of framing of charge. I, therefore, dismiss this revision being meritless affirming the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, this revision is finally disposed of.