Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prikshit Shrivastav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4771
1 MCRC-24556-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24556 of 2024
PRIKSHIT SHRIVASTAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of charge sheet and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.49/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 376 (2) (n), 417, 506, 493 of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that prosecutrix is a major woman and she was in physical relationship with applicant without any objection. Thus, it is clear that if any physical relationship had taken place between applicant and respondent No.2, then it was a consesual act between two major persons and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is guilty of committing rape of prosecutrix.
3. It is further submitted that in the reconciliation proceedings, respondent No.2 had admitted that she is the wife of the applicant and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 06-Mar-25 10:44:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4771 2 MCRC-24556-2024 therefore also it is clear that no offence of rape was ever committed by the applicant.
4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for respondent No.1/State.
5. None for respondent No.2 though served.
6. The facts necessary for disposal of present application, in short, are that respondent No.2 lodged an F.I.R. alleging that at present, she is working as Sports Coordinator in Universal AI University Karjat, Mumbai (Maharashtra). Prior to August, 2022, she was residing in the rented house of one Amit Sharma in Gwalior. The said house was taken on rent on 05.03.2021 and at that time, she was not only taking the Online classes but was also preparing for recruitment to the post of S.I. On 09.01.2017, she met with applicant in the birthday party of her friend. After the said meeting, applicant started sending messages on her Facebook. Initially either those messages were ignored or by way of courtesy she was replying to the same. On 14.07.2020, she again received a message on her Facebook. In the month of September, 2020, she went to the house of her sister in Ujjain. However, in the meanwhile, she continued to have talks with applicant. In the month of February, 2021, she came back from Ujjain to Gwalior. When she came back to Gwalior, applicant starting pressurizing her to have physical relationship with him but it was objected to by respondent No.2. Thereafter, applicant made a proposal of marriage which was refused by respondent No.2. However applicant pursuaded respondent No.2 that for the time being, his parents would not agree for their marriage, therefore, they may perform Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 06-Mar-25 10:44:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4771 3 MCRC-24556-2024 marriage in a Temple. Accordingly, on 04.07.2021 they performed marriage in Temple and some photographs were taken. However they were residing separately. Thereafter, from July, 2021, applicant continuously had physical relationship with her. She was continuously insisting that the marriage should be performed in accordance with rituals so that society may come to know about the same, however, on pretext of one excuse or the other, applicant always avoided to perform marriage in accordance with rituals. In the month of February, 2022, applicant went to Delhi and whenever he used to come to Gwalior he was having physical relationship on the pretext of false marriage. When she continuously insisted for marriage then applicant started avoiding her. In the month of August, 2022, she went to Mumbai to join her job, however applicant stopped responding to her. On 30.10.2022, he had physical relationship for the last time. In December, 2022, she went to Delhi in connection with the examination of UPSC and tried to meet the applicant but he refused to meet her. He also threatened that in case, if she insists for marriage and try to meet him then he would kill her. Inspite the fact that she tried to convince applicant, but he was always threatened that she should not take a legal action and accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged.
7. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since respondent No. 2 was a consenting party and if she continued with her physical relationship inspite of the fact that the applicant was not performing marriage, then it is clear that the consent obtained by applicant was not hit by Section 90 of IPC and therefore, it is submitted that since respondent No.2 herself was a consenting party, thus no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 06-Mar-25 10:44:19 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4771 4 MCRC-24556-2024
8. Heard learned cousnel for applicant.
9. The respondent No.2 in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that they performed marriage in a Temple of Orchha after performing Pooja. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that the marriage was performed after observing Saptpadi. Furthermore, respondent No.2 was allegedly insisting the applicant to perform marriage in front of the society but it was always denied by applicant. It is not a case of the applicant that he is the husband of the respondent no.2. Even during the course of argument, neither the counsel disputed the allegation of marriage by Puja nor admitted that applicant is the husband of resopndent no.2.
1 0 . Thus now the question for consideration is as to whether the consent of respondent No.2 was a free consent or not ?
11. Section 90 of IPC reads as under:-
"90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.--A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or Consent of insane person.-- if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or Consent of child.-- unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age."
12. If the facts of the case are considered, then it is clear that initially applicant organized for a marriage by Pooja in a Temple on the pretext that for the time being, his parents would not agree for marriage and after the so- called marriage in a Temple, they were residing separately. In absence of any avernments by respondent No.2 in her statement under Section 164 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 06-Mar-25 10:44:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4771 5 MCRC-24556-2024 Cr.P.C., it is not clear as to whether the marriage was performed by observing Saptpadi or not. Even otherwise, it is not the case of applicant that he had married with respondent No.2.
13. Section 375 of IPC reads as under:-
"375 Rape - A man is said to commit "rape", who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions :-
xxx xxx xxx Fourthly -- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married."
14. If the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the light of Section 375 Fourthly of IPC., then it is clear that by marrying respondent No.2 is a temple, applicant had given a bonafide belief in the mind of respondent No.2 that she is his legally wedded wife. Under these circumstances, if the consent of a major woman is obtained, then the case would be squarely covered by Section 375 Fourthly of IPC. It is not a case of false promise of marriage as it was being projected by applicant. Since the case, in hand, is squarely covered by Section 375 Fourthly IPC, therefore, it is clear that applicant gave a false impression of bonafide belief in the mind of respondent No.2 that she is legally wedded wife of applicant and thus obtained her consent. Therefore her consent can not be said to be a free consent. Accordingly, it is clear that the F.I.R. as well as the material collected by the police clearly indicates the commission of offence under Sections 375 (2) (n), 417, 506, 493 of IPC. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
15. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 06-Mar-25 10:44:19 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4771 6 MCRC-24556-2024 (G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AK/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 06-Mar-25 10:44:19 AM