Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sailendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32674 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SAILENDRA SINGH S/O KAMMOD SINGH
SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
KAMLA COLONY, COLLECTORATE KE
SAMNE, DHAOLPUR (RAJASTHAN)
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PURAN KUMAR KULSHRESHTHA
- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION AMBAH,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. VANDANA @ ARTI SINGH D/O
BHARAT SINGH TOMAR W/O SHRI ANIL
SINGH SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, R/O MAKAN NO.1, KHA KA GARH
KHOKAD, TEHSIL KHERAGARD, POLICE
STATION KHERAGARH, DISTRICT AGRA
U.P. AT PRESENT R/O VILLAGE NAVALI
POLICE THANA AMBAH, TEHSIL AMBAH,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PPS VAJEETA- PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE & SHRI O.P. MEENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 28-04-2023
09:55:51 AM
2
passed the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
By invoking inherent power of this Court, present petition has been preferred by petitioner u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.216 of 2022 registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.
The necessary facts for disposal of present petition in short are that the respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 02/04/2022 to the effect that she is resident of Madhupuri Colony, Ambah District Morena and is a beautician by profession and had developed friendship with the petitioner about 3-4 years prior to date of FIR. The petitioner had promised to marry her and on the said promise, he made physical relationship with the prosecutrix/respondent no.2 on many times. On 09/03/2022 at about 10:00 a.m., the petitioner-accused came in her beauty parlor which is situated at Madhupuri Colony and committed rape upon her, thereafter, fled away from there. The respondent no.2 told the said incident to her brother and mother. After waiting a long time, when the petitioner was not ready to marry her. Thereafter, the FIR bearing Crime No.216 of 2022 has been registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC against the petitioner-accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix/respondent no.2 is a major lady aged about 28 and she has not revealed the fact that she is a married woman. It is further submitted that the offence has been committed on 09/03/2022 whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 02/04/2022 almost the delay of one month for which no plausible explanation has been given. Even if, the allegations made in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 28-04-2023 09:55:51 AM 3 complaint are taken as it is, no case of rape is made out as the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground that there is no allegations against the petitioner that there was forcible act on his part which constitute the offence within the meaning of Section 376 & 376(2)(n) of IPC.
In support of this contentions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(s).442/2022 decided on 27/07/2022, in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharastra and Ors [2019 CRI. L.J. 1169 S.C.] and the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. and another [AIR Online 2020 MP 917].
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashment of FIR. It is submitted that in the complaint, the prosecutrix stated that the petitioner-accused misused his position and came close to her and developed a relation on the false promise of marriage. As per the FIR, the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on many times even in her house and when she asked for marry, the petitioner-accused refused for the same. On 09/03/2022, the petitioner-accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix forcefully. Under such circumstances, the petition has no substance and it be dismissed to save the right of prosecutrix.
Heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record the material available on record.
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C although is vast and wide however, it has to be exercised sparingly only when the situation demands the interference of this Court. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked by this Court in order 'to do Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 28-04-2023 09:55:51 AM 4 justice' and also 'to undo injustice'. This principle has been expanded to say to prevent abuse of process of any court and also to secure ends of justice. These are the basic principles upon which the inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised by this Court. The parameters and the guidelines are available with regard to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in Bhajanlal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1992 SC 604 more particularly in paragraph 102, the Apex Court has laid down the principles but they are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot do trial court work. This Court cannot be a substitute for the trial court. Shifting of evidence, appreciation of evidence, analysis of evidence, weightage of evidence are matters ought to be considered by the trial Court and are ought not to be considered by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In this case, the abuse of process of the court sought for upon certain grounds which are matters to be considered by the trial Court on appreciation of evidence. At this stage, when an specific incident of rape said to be occurred on 09/03/2022 alongwith general allegations, on these grounds, this prosecution cannot be stifled. However, the accused is entitled to defend himself not merely but effectively. It is his constitutional right.
In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the very same grounds raised herein as a defence plea before the trial Court at the appropriate stage of the case and the trial Court will consider the same in accordance with law.
(SUNITA YADAV )
vpn JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 28-04-2023
09:55:51 AM
5
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 28-04-2023
09:55:51 AM