Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 640 (MP)

Ramsuhawan v. State of M. P.

2015-06-23

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. Heard. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR at crime No. 191/2015 under Section 376/506 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged the report that her husband Vijay Shivhare has died before 7-8 years. She has two sons namely Shailu aged 23 years and Abhishek aged 19 years. After death of her husband, she developed love affair with Ravi Chiroliya who promised her to marry, thereafter they used to meet as husband and wife. In the year 2010 they married after taking the blessing of Pujari of Hanuman Temple situated at Datia Bhandare Road. It is alleged that on 21/04/2015 Ravi Chiroliya performed another marriage keeping the complainant in dark and threatened her, if she lodged the report, he would kill her. On the aforesaid, report at Crime No. 191/2015 has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complainant in her report herself admitted that she has married with the applicant, therefore, offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence against the applicant to substantiate the commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC. It is prayed that prosecution of the applicant would amount to abuse of process of Court. 4. Prayer has been opposed by the learned Government Advocate. 5. I have perused the case-diary. From the FIR, it is evident that the complainant has married with the applicant in Hanumanji Temple in the year 2010. After the death of her husband complainant developed the physical relation with the applicant and married with him. She remained with the applicant and they are having relationship as husband and wife. The grievance of the complainant is that applicant has married with another woman keeping her in dark. The complainant is a married woman aged 40 years and on her own will she has developed love affair with the applicant and also have sexual intercourse on her own will. In such circumstances, I find that FIR does not disclose commission of offence under Section 376/506 of IPC. 6. The complainant is a married woman aged 40 years and on her own will she has developed love affair with the applicant and also have sexual intercourse on her own will. In such circumstances, I find that FIR does not disclose commission of offence under Section 376/506 of IPC. 6. In the matter of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others, reported in : (2009) 1 SCC 516, the Hon'ble Apex Court after examining the catena of cases laid down following propositions of law with regard to exercise of extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure :- "15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue." 7. Taking into consideration that in the present case complainant herself developed love affair with the applicant and got married in Hanumanji Temple and have relation with applicant as husband and wife, hence prima facie it appears that FIR does not disclose the commission of offence punishable under Section 376/506 of IPC. In such circumstances prosecution of the applicant amount to be abuse of process of Court. I find this is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. Consequently this petition is allowed and the FIR registered against the applicant at Crime No. 191/2015 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 5681/2015 stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.