Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dwarkesh Ayyer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 374

Author: Shailendra Shukla

Bench: Shailendra Shukla

                                ... 1 ...            M.Cr.C.No.15344/2021


             HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
            S.B : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

                   M.Cr.C. No.15344/2021
             (DWARKESH AYYER v/s. STATE OF M.P.)
Indore dt.8.5.2021
       Heard the learned counsel through video conferencing.
       Shri Gaurav Panchal, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Smaeer Verma, Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant/State.
       Shri Dayanath Pandey, learned counsel for objector.
                                ORDER

Submissions were made on the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No.18/2021, registered at police station GRP, Ratlam, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 366 and 506 of IPC.

2. The prosecution story is that a report was lodged on 25.2.2021 by complainant Reena Khandelwal in GRP police station Ratlam in which it was alleged that she belongs to Mumbai, that in the month of February 2018, she had come to Ratlam for Darshan at Hussain Tekdi. She met the applicant who works in Railway at Ratlam Railway Station. After acquaintance they exchanged their mobile numbers and started conversing with each other. The prosecutrix told him that she is divorcee having two children. The applicant told her that he has no problem and that he would marry her. The prosecutrix asked him to enter into a formal Court marriage. The applicant took the prosecutrix to Ratlam many time and promising marriage to her established physical relations resulting in pregnancy which was aborted in June-July, 2019. He kept on promising to marry her, took her to a temple and told her that he considers the prosecutrix to be his wife before deity. He had obtained identity card of the prosecutrix by telling her that the identity card would be needed in the documents pertaining to Court marriage. However, ultimately the applicant did not fulfill his promise. The period of sexual exploitation was from 1 st ... 2 ... M.Cr.C.No.15344/2021 May, 2018 to 20th December, 2020. The written complaint was filed by the prosecutrix, on the basis of which FIR was lodged and 164 Cr.P.C statements of prosecutrix were recorded.

3. The applicant in his application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has stated that the complainant has withheld an important information from the Court that the she had already filed a complaint in Maharashtra in Thane district in which similar allegations were made and applicant has already been granted bail in the same. Subsequently, the prosecutrix had been threatening the applicant through whats app messages and wants to blackmail the applicant by exploiting money from him. The applicant is an employee of Central Government and a false case has been lodged against him and therefore, he be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Written objections have been filed on behalf of the prosecutrix submitting that not only applicant has committed offences against her as described in the FIR, but has also duped her of an amount of Rs.45.00 lacs regarding which a separate FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix.

5. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has stated that the allegations made in the FIR lodged in the police station Mumbra, district Thane pertains to the date of incident is prior to the incident shown in Mumbra police station is 2 nd March, 2018, whereas in the present case it is shown to be 10th May, 2018 onwords.

6. Submissions were heard.

7. During the course of submissions, this Court made a query as to when the prosecutrix obtained a divorce from her husband. It was informed that the divorce decree was passed on 31.10.2020. The prosecutrix has however, has stated that in FIR that she was already a divorcee when she met the applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has submitted that although the legal divorce had taken place on 31.10.2020, but the prosecutrix and her husband already stood divorced in the year 2018 itself. One fails to understand as to how can there be a divorce which ... 3 ... M.Cr.C.No.15344/2021 is not in accordance with law. The prosecutrix would be assumed to be having divorced her husband only on 31.10.2020 and if she represented to the police and to the applicant that she was already divorced in 2018, then it would be a misrepresentation. Thus, it appears that prosecutrix obtained the promise of marriage from applicant even though she was not divorced from her earlier husband. The prosecutrix has further stated that on last occasion shen applicant established sexual relations with her was on 20.12.2020. However, applicant has filed the train ticket of prosecutrix showing that prosecutrix was travelling from Mumbai to Ratlam on 20.12.2020. Thus, this also is not appears to be acceptable fact that applicant committed rape on prosecutrix on 20.12.2020. The applicant has filed a written complaint before DGP in which it has been complaint that the prosecutrix is trying to extort money from him. A copy of this complaint is placed on record which shows that a copy of the same is given to S.P. Ratlam. The FIR has been lodged on 25.2.2021 and no explanation for delay has been submitted. The prosecutrix being a matured married woman with two children having not divorced appears to have become intimate with the applicant and there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that apart from intimacy, no other angle was involved which would bring the act of the applicant within the category of offence such as rape etc.

9. After due consideration, a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Without commenting on merits of the case, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant Dwarkesh Ayyer shall not be arrested by the Arresting Officer and he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to abiding the conditions enumerated under ... 4 ... M.Cr.C.No.15344/2021 Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and he shall give due assistance to the Investigating Officer in the matter. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.5.2021 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer from time to time.

10. M.Cr.C. No.15344/2021, is allowed and stands disposed of.

11. Certified copy, as per rules.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-