Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 77 (MP)

Ranajeet Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-01-27

ANAND PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : Anand Pathak, J. With consent heard finally through video-conferencing. 1. The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings registered vide Crime No. 311/2019 punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 366, 354(D), 506 of IPC at Police Station Chanderi District Ashoknagar. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case, as per prosecution case are that present petitioner made phone call and gave assurance to the prosecutrix for marriage and took her on 14-07-2018 at Gwalior where he committed rape against her will. Contents of FIR further unfold the allegations that earlier also petitioner established physical relations with the prosecutrix at Chanderi and when it was found by the prosecutrix that petitioner entered into wedlock on 19-04-2019 thereafter, on 12-06-2019 FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Petitioner has challenged the FIR and charge-sheet by way of this petition. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR has been registered at the instance of prosecutrix on dated 12-06-2019 whereas the period of incident allegedly shown to be 14-07-2018 to 07-05-2019 therefore, it suffers from delay and laches. FIR has been registered on the basis of written complaint made by the prosecutrix and from bare reading of the complaint itself, it appears that even after the marriage of accused, she is in contact of petitioner and their physical proximity is consensual. 4. It is further submitted that petitioner never made any promise of marriage to the prosecutrix at any point of time to the prosecutrix and the case has been registered to exert pressure over the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2019 SC 210 to submit that FIR and charge-sheet can be challenged by way of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He also relied upon Ravikant Dubey and others Vs. State of M.P., 2014 Cr. L.R. (MP) 162. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance over Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 , Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 2071 , Dr. State of M.P., 2014 Cr. L.R. (MP) 162. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance over Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 , Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 2071 , Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 SC 327 , Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 SC 4010 to submit that prosecutrix was an adult and matured lady and she was in relationship with petitioner on her own volition and therefore, no evidence exists to conclude that any fraudulent or dishonest inducement extended by the petitioner to constitute offence under Section 376 of IPC. It was a matter of consent. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submission and submitted that trial is at its fag end and the allegations indicate that holding of trial would be in interest of justice. He placed reliance over Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others, (2020) 3 SCC 317 to submit that case does not fall under the scope of power to be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He prayed for dismissal of petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Complainant also opposed the prayer on the ground that statement of prosecutrix has been held and trial is at its fag end therefore, in the interest of justice, petition deserves to be dismissed because trial will reveal the truth. He further referred the statement of prosecutrix to bring home the fact that she was subjected to rape by the petitioner and her consent was never obtained by the petitioner. Her Court statement is implicative in nature and therefore, it would in the interest of justice that trial be allowed to be completed. He relied upon State of Kerala and others Vs. O.C. Kuttan and others, (1999) 2 SCC 651 and Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others, (2020) 3 SCC 317 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto through video-conferencing 8. He relied upon State of Kerala and others Vs. O.C. Kuttan and others, (1999) 2 SCC 651 and Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others, (2020) 3 SCC 317 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto through video-conferencing 8. It is a case where petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR and charge-sheet on the ground that prosecutrix and petitioner shared physical proximity with consent and it was not the false promise which persuaded the prosecutrix to share proximity but it was consent given by a matured adult knowing the implications of relationship. So far as submission of petitioner in respect of consent is concerned, the documents filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 reveal that statement of prosecutrix apparently suggests something else and perusal of the said statement as well as the contents of FIR, it appears that at this stage, it would not be apposite to decide the case by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Section 90 of Evidence Act read with Section 375 of IPC indicate that consent for the purpose of Section 375 of IPC requires voluntary participation and it should be expressed or implied but if consent is given by the prosecutrix under misconception of fact then consent is vitiated. Since the factual matrix of the case does not evoke enough credence and confidence to suggest interference, therefore, this Court does not go into the merits of the case because it may affect the parties adversely in the trial. However, this Court finds enough material on record for holding a full fledged trial. 10. Whether the consent was voluntary, implied, coerced or misguided or obtained through deceit would only be surfaced through leading evidence by the parties. Therefore, scope of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not mandate interference and culpability, mens rea or innocence can only be concluded through trial. Therefore, this Court does not intend to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Judgments relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to his cause at this stage and trial will reveal the truth. No scope exist for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Cumulatively, case of the petitioner fails and petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.