Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 792 (MP)

Saurav Sharma v. State of M. P.

2015-08-03

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is directed against the order passed by learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Special Session Trial No.405/2015 dated 22.6.2015, whereby the learned ASJ found that prima facie, case is made out against the present applicant for framing of charge under section 376(2) (N) of IPC. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that the prosecutrix was residing in Prateek Apartmant. Flat No.102, first floor, Indore. On 15.1.2014, she came in contact with the present applicant through facebook on Internet. The present applicant proposed her for marriage on which, the prosecutrix repiled that the present applicant should talk to her family members, on 27.5.2014, the present applicant came to Indore at her residence in Prateek Apartment and he talked to her elder sister Sapna, brother Pramod Sharma and mother Sharda Sharma. They all agreed for marriage of the prosecutrix to the present applicant. Thereafter, all her family members went to the present applicant. Thereafter, all her family members went to Gwalior, but the present applicant stayed in Indore and he stayed in the residence of the prosecutrix. There, he fulfilled some rituals of marriage and then, he remained with her for 10-12 days, and there, it is alleged that under the promise of regular marriage. he had physical relationship with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, he called her to Delhi. She went to Delhi, and there, she stayed in Om International Hotel, New Delhi, and there also, the present applicant had physical relationship with; On 9.12.2014 he refused to marry the prosecutrix and thereafter, a report was lodged. 3. This revision is filed against the order of framing of charge on the ground that having physical relationship under the false promise of marriage is not the rape under section 375 of IPC. She was called to Delhi and she went to Delhi and as per the allegation, the present applicant has physical relationship with her at Delhi. This also does not come with in the definition of rape under section 375 of IPC. In her MLC, no definite opinion may be given regarding rape. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the present applicant has not committed any offence under section 376(2) (n) of IPC. 4. This also does not come with in the definition of rape under section 375 of IPC. In her MLC, no definite opinion may be given regarding rape. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the present applicant has not committed any offence under section 376(2) (n) of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a trite law that if physical relationship is made under the false promise of marriage, which the accused knew from the very beginning that he had no intention to marry the prosecutrix, then such act is an offence. She also argued that the present applicant, as per the allegation in the FIR, made certain rituals to put her under a belief that they were legally married husband and wife and thereafter, physical relationship took place 5. Applying the principles laid down by Hon’ble apex Court in many cases, whether the present applicant had no intention to marry the prosecutrix, this story can be ascertained only after recording of evidence. At this stage, from the plain reading of the allegations stated in the FIR, it is apparent that prima facie the case of rape is made out against the present applicant. In view of this, no case is made out for interference using powers granted under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC in the impugned order, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Judge. This criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.