Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 404 (RAJ)

Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-03

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No. 417/2022 registered with Bayana Police Station District Bharatpur for offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC at the behest of respondent No.2. The challenge is on the ground that the FIR suffers from malicious prosecution to wreck vengeance. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the two petitioners are full brothers. Petitioner No.1, Ravi Kumar was in love with respondent No.2, both eloped on 16.2.2022. On 17.2.2022, both entered into marriage and on 17.2.2022 itself, the marriage got registered. Smt. Asha Kiran Sharma, mother of respondent No.2, got FIR No. 81/2022 registered on 17.2.2022 with Kotwali Police Station District Bharatpur for offences under Section 363 and 366 IPC alleging therein that the petitioners and others have allegedly kidnapped respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.2.2022. In that statement she stated that "she is aged above 19 years. She loved petitioner Ravi Kumar, therefore, she had voluntarily left her house to marry with Ravi Kumar. Ravi Kumar had neither induced her nor threatened her to leave her house. In fact Respondent No. 2 on the mobile phone of her Bhabhi had called Ravi Kumar. She further stated that both have married in Ghaziabad. Ravi Kumar has not committed any offence against her. Since both are husband and wife, Respondent No.2 wants to be with Ravi Kumar." 3. Considering the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the police submitted negative report after investigation of FIR No. 81/2022. The negative report was accepted by the Magistrate vide order dated 29.4.2022 recording that even the complainant has agreed for acceptance of the final report and closure of the case. A copy of the order is at Annexure-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the father of the victim was so annoyed with the aforesaid conduct of the victim, who was a major girl born on 26.12.2002, that the father got a press notice published in a daily newspaper declaring that Respondent No.2 aged about 19 years is not having good behaviour with the family. She does not obey the family. She had fallen in wrong company. In spite of brain wash given to her, she is adamant on her stand. She does not obey the family. She had fallen in wrong company. In spite of brain wash given to her, she is adamant on her stand. Therefore, the father declared that he debars respondent No.2 from his entire movable and immovable properties and further notified that he had no concern with respondent No.2 nor the family would be responsible for any act of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after marriage, in the Aadahar Card, the name of petitioner Ravi Kumar was recorded as the husband of respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in one go, all of a sudden, respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR No. 417/2022 on 8.5.2022 at Bayana Police Station District Bharatpur alleging that the petitioners had induced her to leave her house and go to Ghaziabad and Meerut and she accompanied the petitioner. The petitioner forcibly got her signatures on different papers by threatening that if she would not sign the papers, her parents would be murdered. At the time of leaving the house, respondent No.2 had taken Rs. 50,000/- from her house which was also snatched by the petitioners. Allegation is that Ravi Kumar established physical relations with her and wanted to sale her, petitioner No.2 also wanted to have physical relations with her. Learned counsel contends that the background of the allegation would make it crystal clear that due to breakup of the relation between the two for the reasons known to respondent No.2, false FIR has been lodged just to harass the petitioners, in fact it was a consensual act of respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that in the reply, respondent No.2 has categorically stated that her signatures at the time of marriage or registration of marriage was taken by putting her in fear of death of parents. Petitioners had asked respondent No.2 to give favourable statement while her statement was being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in FIR No. 81/2022. Respondent No.2 has stated in her reply that the petitioner used to follow her when she was studying in B.Sc. On numerous occasions, the petitioner talked to respondent No.2. On 16.2.2022, when respondent No.2 came out of her hose to throw garbage, the petitioners who were standing outside the house asked her to come out of the house in the wee hours of night, otherwise, her parents would be killed. On numerous occasions, the petitioner talked to respondent No.2. On 16.2.2022, when respondent No.2 came out of her hose to throw garbage, the petitioners who were standing outside the house asked her to come out of the house in the wee hours of night, otherwise, her parents would be killed. Respondent No.2 left her house on the same night. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that if FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence of heinous nature, it should be allowed to be investigated according to law and in the view of well settled principles, the FIR need not be quashed only for some plausible otherwise material. 6. Now, the question for consideration is whether in the background of the FIR, it can be said that the impugned FIR was lodged with malicious intention to wreck vengeance and is just an attempt to abuse the process of law. 7. The record would reveal that the impugned FIR was lodged only after closure of the first FIR and press notice of the father of respondent No.2 against respondent No.2. The conduct of respondent No.2 reveals that she was infact a consenting party, as nowhere before the impugned FIR she made any protest or complaint of her different acts including movement with the petitioners without any protest or opposition. The conduct of the petitioners in first entering into a marriage and getting the marriage registered cannot be alleged that the act of the petitioners specially petitioner No.1 was of a rapist rather, the conduct of the parties would show that respondent No.2 was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. If she has denied her stand subsequently, she cannot be allowed to abuse the process of law by unnecessarily and mercilessly harassing the petitioner in a criminal case. 8. In Raju and ors. v. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 133 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that it cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humility to the victim but at the same time, false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. 9. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. 9. Since respondent No.2 had consented to go with the petitioners with active understanding of the circumstances of the action and consequences of the proposed act, she had sufficient opportunity to disclose, the inducement or threat posed by the petitioners, to her family members but she kept everything hidden rather left the house along with Rs. 50,000/- of the family. When an adult makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, she admittedly consents to such action. Reference may be made to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608 . 10. Considering the background of FIR and previous development of the matter as noticed above, the continuance of impugned FIR would lead to miscarriage of justice and amount to allowing abuse of the process of law, hence the impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.