Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 57 (MP)

Rajpal yashona v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024-01-10

PRANAY VERMA

body2024
ORDER : With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. 2. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No. 598/2019 registered under section 376(2)(n), 313, 294 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain. 3. As per the prosecution, on 5-12-2019 a written complaint was made by the prosecutrix/respondent No. 2 to the effect that she had been engaged to be married to the petitioner in August, 2016 by consent of the families of both of them. Thereafter she had started talking to the petitioner. One day the petitioner had come to her house when she was alone and had committed rape upon her. When she started crying he stated that since now they are engaged he will marry her immediately upon completion of her graduation and she should not narrate the incident to her family members else he would break the engagement and shall malign her. Due to the threat she did not narrate the incident to anyone. Thereafter she had become pregnant and the petitioner under the false pretext of giving her a vitamin tablet had given her a tablet for abortion as a result of which her fetus was aborted. She told the petitioner that he has ruined her life and she would tell everything to her parents and that he should marry her, which he refused stating that she has still not graduated. She waited for the graduation but when her parents asked him for the marriage he refused stating that the prosecutrix is not worth marrying. The petitioner had also taken her under the false pretext to Chintaman Ganesh Temple, Ujjain and had created a false marriage ceremony and had got her signatures on various documents. He did not take her home after the marriage and when she went to Sagar where he was posted he turned her out of the house. Thereafter the report was lodged by the prosecutrix, on the basis of which the instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initiation and continuation of the proceedings by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner is a gross abuse of the process of law by her. Thereafter the report was lodged by the prosecutrix, on the basis of which the instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initiation and continuation of the proceedings by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner is a gross abuse of the process of law by her. The prosecutrix as per her own version had got married to the petitioner on 26-12-2017 at Chintaman Ganesh Temple according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter a Marriage Certificate of the petitioner with the prosecutrix was also issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Gram Panchayat, Chintaman, Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain, District Ujjain on 26-12-2017. On disputes having arisen between the parties, the prosecutrix had made a complaint before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Mahila Thana, Ujjain in which she had categorically stated that the petitioner is her husband and has been harassing her. Her statement was also recorded in which she stated that she had married the petitioner on 26-12-2017 at Chintaman Ganesh Temple, Ujjain and that the same was a love marriage. She categorically stated that the petitioner is her husband and is a Doctor and posted at Sagar and that disputes have been going on between them for about a year and she wants that the petitioner should keep her with dignity. In the report of those proceedings it was recorded that both the parties reached to an amicable settlement and would live together thereafter. A complaint was also made by the prosecutrix to the City Superintendent of Police, Ujjain in which also she stated that the petitioner is her husband and in those proceedings also it was found that the petitioner is the husband of the prosecutrix and there have been matrimonial disputes between them which have however been settled. It is submitted that the entire allegations as levelled by the prosecutrix as regards commission of rape by him are prior in point of time to her marriage with him which as per the prosecutrix herself stand condoned on account of her having married the petitioner. It is not the allegation that any such act has been committed by the petitioner subsequent thereto. It is hence submitted that the present proceedings deserve to be quashed. It is not the allegation that any such act has been committed by the petitioner subsequent thereto. It is hence submitted that the present proceedings deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 , Raj Kumar Choudhary vs. State of M. P., 2017(3) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 215, Devendra Nath Srivastava vs. State of U. P., 2017(3) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 220, Manoj Khare vs. Station House Officer of Police and another, 2017(3) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 248 and Prassanna Venkardari Agrahar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017(3) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 256. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the prosecutrix have submitted that there is ample material available on record to proceed with against the petitioner in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has committed rape upon the prosecutrix and categoric statement in that regard has been by her in the complaint and it cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever to proceed with against the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It is well settled that if the prosecution is totally frivolous and vexatious and without any basis and has been initiated only for the purpose of wrecking vengeance against the accused, the same ought to be quashed. The facts of the present case reveal that the report has been lodged by the prosecutrix in December, 2019. As per her own version, she had been engaged to the petitioner in August, 2016 with the consent of family members of both the parties. She has alleged that thereafter the petitioner had committed rape upon her due to which she had become pregnant and petitioner had surreptitiously got the pregnancy aborted. Pertinently, nowhere has it been stated by the prosecutrix as to when and on what date or even period the petitioner committed rape upon her. 8. However on the record is the statement of the prosecutrix herself in proceedings before the Mahila Thana, Ujjain in April, 2019 wherein her statement was recorded in which she categorically stated that the petitioner is her husband and that there have been matrimonial disputes between them for about a year. 8. However on the record is the statement of the prosecutrix herself in proceedings before the Mahila Thana, Ujjain in April, 2019 wherein her statement was recorded in which she categorically stated that the petitioner is her husband and that there have been matrimonial disputes between them for about a year. She further stated that her marriage with the petitioner was a love marriage. Eventually, the petitioner and the prosecutrix entered into an amicable settlement and decided to go together. Subsequently also a report was made by the prosecutrix to the City Superintendent of Police in which also she stated that the petitioner is her husband and has been harassing her. The outcome of the complaint was also to the effect that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. 9. In all these proceedings the prosecutrix had at every stage stated that she has married the petitioner and there have been disputes between them which are matrimonial in nature. No allegation whatsoever as has been levelled by her in the present FIR was ever levelled by her at any stage. The marriage of the prosecutrix with the petitioner has the effect of any previous alleged acts of his paling into insignificance. Moreover there is a Certificate issued by the competent authority dated 16-5-2018 to the effect that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have got married on 26-12-2017 which Certificate has been issued under the provisions of M. P. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2008. The aforesaid documents are of impeachable quality and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve them. They have even otherwise not been questioned by the prosecutrix. In such circumstances the principles as laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully apply to the facts of the present case. 10. Thus in view of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be permitting abuse of process of law at the instance of respondent No. 2. Consequently for preventing such an abuse, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed and FIR bearing Crime No. 598/2019 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 313 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.