Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Ramrakhyani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2019
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.18436/2019
(Rohit Ramrakhyani Vs.State of M.P.)
Shri Jalal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
ORDER
(17 /10/2019) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 170/2019 registered at Police Station- Industrial Area, Ratlam, District Ratlam for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354 (D), 341, 506, 376, 376 (2) (n) of I.P.C. and all other consequential proceedings initiated in furtherance to the aforesaid FIR.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam on 26.03.2019 alleging that she used to go coaching classes somewhere in last year at Vishwas Academy in guidance and teaching under the accused/applicant. Thereon, the applicant has advised to her about better coaching institution at Indore, furtherance to this, the prosecutrix asked by the applicant to take at the same in Indore, for which he had been asked her to fetch her marksheet and Aadhar Card. In acceptance of the aforesaid advise, the prosecutrix had been to Indore alongwith the applicant and alleged on him to did not let her been to any of the aforesaid particular coaching institution, rather took her elsewhere at an office where he said her to marry him, on which she refused to do so. Upon refusal of getting married to him by her, the 2 applicant has said about his maternal relative's standing and glory through elaborating their posts occupying by them to prosecutrix and allegedly he threatened her to let her father's service being terminated. Upon threatening to prosecutrix life, she had been bound by him to let the certain documents being signed about which later on she come to know that particular signing place is in office of Arya Samaj, where her marriage papers being signed and got prepared or forged under consent. Henceforth she alleged to let her being roam here and there with him for 2 weeks and asked her to give and made statement in his favour to not being annoyed and bothered by him anymore, which would be in consideration as an stipulation to leave her, which she pursued and alleged about acted accordingly under his threat. Being abide under consideration of her statement and based on it, she had been returned at applicant place at Bhopal and thereon he does not allow to let her converse and meet her family, she also being in survival of her life with treatment of unfairly under his threat. While the applicant got disappeared for while then telephonically she had informed her family about the threatening survival with him and based on it, the respective competent police Station- Industrial Area, Ratlam had called upon to applicant alongwith prosecutrix's mother and father. From 14.02.2019, she is being living with her family and on very next day, the applicant had been to her house alongwith police and had forcefully tried to take her away alongwith him. He also been alleged by her for uploading prosecutrix's and he family member's photographs on whatsapp and facebook to disrepute her. The applicant also 3 threaten her and family member's life, and to forcefully want her to being spent the life alongwith him.It is also allleged that whenever she comes out of her house, he keeps to follow her, blocks her way and attempts to molest her. On 11.03.2019, when she had been to Arts and Science College for appearing in examination, he came there and annoyed her, tried to hold her hand and exerted force which laid down to appear in examination. When she came out of her home on 25.03.2019 at 10:00 then he did abusive gestures to her and after being resistance by her on such abusive act, he holds her hand with wrong intention and tried to let her being gone and taken away with him. She rescued herself and got escaped in her home with her family members and which all conveyed by prosecutrix to her parents then she came to the police station for reporting the matter. On the basis of aforesaid information, police registered the FIR bearing crime No.170/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354 (D), 341, 506, 376, 376 (2)
(n) of I.P.C. against the applicant and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ratlam, who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is well educated, renowned teacher with goodwill in the society and has falsely been implicated in the present crime. There is absolutely no material available on record to being divulging about the commission of the alleged offence and has no involvement in commission of such offence. The prosecutrix being in an acquaintance with the applicant and besides further 4 development of their relationship in love affair, the prosecutrix has been willingly and willful left her home alongwith carrying bag of her own which has to heed at in the complaint of missing made by prosecutrix's father on 04.11.2018. The prosecutrix has been married on her own desire and crave to being the marriage done and tied into martial relationship with the applicant at Indore, accordingly same happen on 04.11.2018 before Vaidik Vivaah Aivam Sanskaar Samiti under Arya Vivaah Vidhi Adhimanyakaran Act, 1937 for which the marriage certificate alongwith photographs of all legal marital customs done, before the same, has been issued and duly signed by the respective authorities. The affidavits of prosecutrix and applicant in support of and legal standing, with all liabilities towards each other after marriage, of getting marry executed and notarized at the time exactly before being marry to each other. The prosecutrix about 2 weeks roaming, the delightful photographs and biometric-passes between 05.11.2018 to 13.11.2018 which are mandatory for darshan at Shirdi, maharashtra of her alongwith applicant as newly married couple, without imposing on her at all are presented for visionary. The prosecutrix herself has sent a letter duly signed by own through speed post, to the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, alongwith the legal standing papers enclosed for being marry to applicant. Subsequently, being into the fear and for the protection be provided to the couple from prosecutrix's parents after being known to her about the missing complaint registered by her parents. The letter been sent subsequently getting married to the applicant, with details about the 5 acquaintance, friendship, love affair and resultantly marital status between them under her own consent. In pursuance to the happy married life, and for being into the lawful marital status, and after applying by the prosecutrix and applicant, they are also being issued Government of Madhya Pradesh, India (Department of Planning Economic & Statistics) Marriage Certificate under (M.P. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rule 2008, 10 (2) on 18th December 2018, which is according registered in Municipality Indore, Nagar Nigam. However, the prosecutrix had been wrongfully taken in custody by the police of Industrial Area, Ratlam from the applicant and his family. The prosecutrix alongwith statement of her father, has accepting the fact of being married to the applicant. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for quashment of FIR as well as criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of aforesaid FIR.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the application by contending that the applicant took the prosecutrix forcefully against her wish and to justify his act, he created fabricated documents and he took signature of the prosecutrix in certificate by threatening, hence, there is prima facie material is available on record to prosecute the applicant for the aforesaid offence registered against him, thus they prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. According to the statement recorded under Section 164 of 6 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, it appears that she is a major girl aged about 19 years and resident of Dongre Nagar Ratlam. She used to go for coaching classes somewhere in the year 2018 at Vishwas Academy, Ratlam and present applicant was also taking coaching there. It is alleged that applicant has advised to her about better coaching institution at Indore and furtherance prosecutrix been asked by applicant to take admission and joined at Indore for which he had been asked her to fetch her marksheets and aadar card. On 03.11.2018 she went with the applicant alongwith her Aadhar card and Marksheet.The applicant took her at the office situated at Indore and said her to marry with him. When she refused to do so then applicant threatened her that he terminated the services of his father from Railway department because his maternal uncle has retired from Government services and his son is an advocate practicing at Indore. Upon threatening to her life, she had been bound by him to let the certain documents being signed and he also signed in the aforesaid documents. Later on she came to know that particular signing place is an office of Arya Samaj, where her marriage papers being signed and got prepared or forged under consent. Thereafter, applicant let her being roam here and there with him for two weeks and asked her to give and made statement in his favour to not being annoyed and bothered by him anymore, which would be in consideration as an stipulation to leave her which she pursued and on 14.11.2018 she has given statement in favour of the applicant at Police Station- Industrial Area, Ratlam. On the basis of her statement, police sent her with the applicant. Then applicant 7 took her Bhopal and Ujjain and does not allow to let her converse and meet her family. When one day applicant went outside, then she telephonically informed her family about the threatening survival with her and based on it, the respective competent police Station- Industrial Area, Ratlam had called on applicant alongwith prosecutrix and his mother and father, where her statement was recorded in which she stated that she want to live with her parents since then she is residing in her parental house. Thereafter applicant threatened her and family member's life and he want to take her forcefully, therefore, he keeps to follow her, blocks her way and attempts to molest her. This fact also been corroborated by the statement of her mother recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
7. The missing report dated 04.11.2018 lodged by the father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam that on 03.11.2018 at about 16:30 pm his daughter went to coaching classes but she did not return back. On searching she was not found. He also suspected that his daughter had gone alongwith present applicant, who is teaching in the coaching classes. On the basis of which police registered missing person report No.123/2018. During enquiry of missing person report, police discovered the prosecutrix on 14.11.2018 and recorded her statement in which she categorically stated that she knows the present applicant since last one year and she is having love affair with the applicant. She had gone with the applicant on 03.11.2018 and on 04.11.2018 she contracted the marriage with the applicant at Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore, thereafter both of them went to the Sirdi and remains there. She also stated 8 that she is major and she solemnized marriage with the applicant out of her own will and she wanted to live with the applicant, she does not want to go with her parent house. On the basis of the aforesaid statement given by the prosecutrix, police allowed her to go with the applicant.
8. The uncle of the applicant Tolaram Chhugani approached to the Human Right Commission, Bhopal regarding the aforesaid incident and on the basis of that Human Right Commission directed to the Ratlam Police to enquire the application and sent the enquiry report. On the basis of enquiry report submitted by CSP, Ratlam, the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam sent a report alongwith letter to Registrar (Law), Human Rights Commission, Bhopal vide letter No.119-C/18 dated 10.12.2018, the same is reproduced below :-
dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk&jryke ¼e0iz0½ dzekad@iqv@jr@LVsuks@f'kiq@ekvvk@119&lh@18 fnukad 10-12-18 izfr] jftLVªkj ¼ykW½] e/;izns'k ekuo vf/kdkj vk;ksx] Ik;kZokl Hkou] [k.M&1 izFkery] vjsjk fgYl HkksikyA fo"k; %& vkosnd rksykjke Nqxkuh la;kstd&lglaj{kd&egkuxj fla/kh dY;k.k iapk;r VªLV ds }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= dh tkap dj iw.kZ ,oa rF;kRed izfrosnu Hkstus ds laca/k esaA lUnHkZ %& vkidk i= dzekad 37099@ekvvk@9075@Hkksiky@2018 fna019-11-18 mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr d`i;k lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djus dk fuosnu gS] ftlds ek/;e ls vkosnd rksykjke Nqxkuh la;kstd&lglaj{kd&egkuxj fla/kh dY;k.k iapk;r VªLV ds i= dh tkap uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd jryke ls djokbZ xbZA u0iq0v0 jryke }kjk i= dz-a uiqv@jryke @f'kiq@ekvvk@64&,@18 fnukad 06-12-18 ls izfrosfnr fd;k gS fd %& f'kdk;r tkap ds nkSjku Fkkuk izHkkjh vkS0 {ks= jryke ls rF;kRed izfrosnu izkIr djrs ik;k fd Fkkuk vkS0{ks= ds xqe'kqnxh dz-a 123@18 dh xqe'kqnk 'X' ckfyx gksdj vius nksLr jksfgr ds lkFk Lo;a dh ethZ ls xbZ Fkh] 9 vkosnd xqe'kqnk 'X' ds ifr jksfgr ds pkpk gS lkFk gh odhy Hkh gSA 'X' }kjk Mkd ls ,d f'kdk;r vius ekrk firk ds fo:) jksfgr dks >qBs dsl esa Qlkus dh Fkkus ij Hksth gS] lkFk gh 'X' }kjk Mkd ls jksfgr ,oa 'X' ds e/; dh xbZ vk;Z lekt bankSj esa 'kknh ds QksVks ,oa 'kknh ds izek.k i= Hkstk gSA fnukad 14- 11-18 dks 'X' us Lo;a Fkkus ij mifLFkr gksdj nLr;kch djokbZ ,oa vius dFkuksa esa crk;k fd og Lo;a dh ethZ ls ckfyx gksdj ?kj NksM+dj xbZ ,oa fcuk fdlh ncko ds jksfgr ls 'kknh dj yh gS rFkk jksfgr ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gSA ckn xqe'kqnk 'X' dks jksfgr ds lkFk lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA 'X' ds ekrk firk Hkh lqiqnZxh ds le; mifLFkr Fks ftUgs lwpuk ekSf[kd nh xbZA 'X' us 'kknh djus ds ckn vius c;ku ugha fn;s Fks] tc iqfyl jksfgr dh ryk'k dj jgh Fkh rd mlds pkpk rksykjke Nqikuh us f'kdk;r dh FkhA orZeku esa dksbZ fookn ugha gS 'X' mlds ifr jksfgr ds lkFk jg jgh gSA vkosnd iqfyl dk;Zokgh ls larq"V gS ,oa vkosnu i= ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gSA uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd jryke ls izkIr izfrosnu dh Nk;kizfr e; lgi=ksa ds bl i= ds layXu lknj izsf"kr gSA layXu & mijksDukuqlkj dqy i`"B -------
¼xkSjo frokjh½ Hkkiqls0 iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk & jryke 07412&270460
9. On 05.02.2019, the prosecutorix sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain alongwith her affidavit in which she admires applicant and her parents, also prevents them rather she has made complaints about her own parents and maternal uncle for trespass, to stealing marriage documents, photographs and to threaten of life to them, with challenging about dissolving their marriage anyway by hook or crook. The contents of the letter dated 05.02.2019 reads as under:-
fnukad 05-02-2019 izfr] Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;
iqfyl v/kh{kd dk;kZy;] mTtSu ¼e-iz-½ fo"k; %& eq> izkfFkZuh ds ekrk&firk o ekek ds }kjk izrkfM+r djuk o esjs lkl] llqj o ifr dks vuk;kl ijs'kku dj esjs llqjky i{k ds f[kykQ >wBk izdj.k ntZ djus dh fjiksVZ ntZ djus fo"k;dA 10 egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd eSa izkfFkZuh 'X' jke[;kuh ifr Jh jksfgr jke[;kuh fuoklh & mTtSu dh gksdj eSa iw.kZr% ckfyx gwW rFkk viuk vPNk Hkyk vPNh rjg ls le>rh gWwA egksn;] eSus vius jtkeUnh ls fnukad 04-11-2018 dks vk;Z lekt efUnj ls ifjokj dh vuqifLFkfr esa fookg fd;k Fkk rFkk fnukad 14 uoEcj 2018 dks jryke vkS|ksfxd Fkkus esa is'k gksdj ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd dk;kZy;] jryke esa mifLFkr gksdj c;ku fn;s FksA c;ku esjs ekrk&firk] ekek&ekeh o vU; fj'rsnkjksa dh mifLFkfr esa esjs }kjk Li"V rkSj ij dgk Fkk fd eSa viuh jtkeanh ls vius ifr ds lkFk thou fuokZg d:Wxh ,oa gekjk orZeku irk 157] xyh u- 6 'kkL=h uxj mTtSu gSA egksn;] c;ku gksus ds i'pkr~ Hkh esjs ekrk&firk o ekek }kjk esjs llqjky i{k esa vuko';d ncko cukdj eq>s ys tkus gsrq gjlEHko iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk esjs llqjky okyksa ds f[kykQ ngst dk >wBk izdj.k ntZ djkus dh /kedh Hkh nh tk jgh gSA ysfdu okLrfodrk ;g gS fd esjs fookg esa llqjky i{k dh dksbZ fgLlsnkjh ugha FkhA ge nksuksa iw.kZr% O;Ld gSA blfy;s ge ij fdlh us Hkh dksbZ ncko ugha cuk;kA egksn;] fnukad 03 Qjojh 2019 dks esjs ekrk&firk o ekek us esjs llqjky esa tkdj esjs llqj dks csbZTtr fd;k o mudks vi'kCn Hkh dgs rFkk esjs o esjs ifr ds vko';d nLrkostksa dh QkbZy ysdj jryke pys x;sA egksn;] esjk vkils djc) fuosnu gS fd esjs ekrk&firk o ekek dks cqykdj esjh vuqifLFkfr esa mUgsa le>kbZ'k nh tkosa fd eq> ij tcjnLrh ncko u cuk;k tkosa D;ksafd orZeku esa eSa xHkZorh gWw rFkk esjs vkus okys cPps ds lkFk dksbZ Hkh vugksuh gksrh gS rks mlds fy;s esjs ekrk&firk o ekek ftEesnkj jgsaxsA gesa gekjs vko';d nLrkostksa dh QkbZy okfil fnyokbZ tkosa rFkk esjs ifr vFkok llqjky i{k ds lkFk fdlh Hkh rjg dh dksbZ vfiz; ?kVuk ?kfVr u gks] bl gsrq laj{k.k fn;k tkosaA eSa vius ifr ds lkFk thou O;rhr djuk pkgrh gWw] bl gsrq eSa viuh lgerh nsrh gwWA d`i;k lg;ksx iznku djus dk d"V djsaA ;gh fou; gSA /kU;oknA izkfFkZuh ¼'X'½
10. On 14.02.2019, the prosecuterix came to the Police alongwith applicant where her statement was recorded by the police in which she again repeated that she got married to the applicant on 04.11.2018 at Arya Samaj Temple, Indore. Today, she came to the Police Station alongwith her husband, now she is going to house of her parents. She is not having any pressure and till her wish she will remain with her parents and thereafter 11 she went to go to the house of the applicant, if her parents prevented her to go to the house of husband then she will take recourse of law. She also deposed that if any action will be taken against the applicant by her parents then it would be treated as void and she wished that nobody harass her husband. These documents clearly indicates that prosecutrix contracted the marriage with the applicant and she remained with him for a period of 3-4 months and thereafter she came to the her parental house.
11. On 26.03.2019, the prosecutrix lodged FIR against the applicant alleging that on 25.03.2019 at about 10:00 am, the applicant did abusive gestures to her and after being resistance by her on such abusive act, the applicant hold her hand with wrong intention and tried to let her being gone and taken away with him, she rescued herself and got escaped in her home with her family members and which all conveyed by prosecutrix to her parents. It is also alleged that the applicant also threaten her and family member's life, and to forcefully want her to being spent the life alongwith him. It is also allleged that whenever she comes out of her house, he keeps to follow her, blocks her way and attempts to molest her. On the basis of which, the F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant.
Looking to these facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that no case under Section 376 and 376 (2) (n) of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant
12. Although, the applicant has conducted marriage with the prosecutrix. However, after returning to her parental house, the applicant tried to took her forcefully and assaulted her with 12 intend to outrage her modesty and the applicant threatened her to upload the photographs of her and her family members on whatsapp and facebook to disrupt her.
13. Now the question before me for consideration as regards the husband being guilty of outraging the modesty of his wife.
14. If a person assaults or uses criminal force against any woman intending to outrage, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage, her modesty, he commits an offence under section 354 of IPC. Its essential ingredients are the use of criminal force or assault against a woman for the purpose of outraging her modesty. A person is said to use force against another if he causes motion or cessation of motion to that other by his own bodily power or by inducing any animal to change his motion. Force becomes criminal when it is used with criminal intention and without that other's consent. Whoever makes any gesture or preparation to give an apprehension to the other that he is about to use criminal force is said to commit an assault. It follows that if this is committed or criminal force is used with the intent or knowledge specified in the section, the offender is guilty of outraging the modesty of a woman under section 354.
15. In the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 S.C. 63 , the Apex Court has held that " the offence created by section 354 is as much in the interest of the woman concerned as in that of public morality and indecent behaviour in . Now, if it is not only against the individual but also against the public morality and society.
16. In the case of Mi Hla So v. Nga Than (1912) 13 Cri.
13L.J. 53 (Burma), the accused Nga Than was in love with Mi Hla So. He pulled her hair and hand in the presence of several persons. The force used in the presence of several persons was held to be calculated to outrage the woman's modesty under section 354. It was observed that "the assault suggested to Burmese onlookers that the man and woman are on conjugal terms." What follows is that had the woman been on "conjugal terms" the act of the accused in pulling her hair and hand would not have been an outrage of her modesty. Another aspect of this case is that a husband may not be held guilty of outraging the modesty of his wife in case his act is an expression of affection and happiness and not of cruelty or infidelity.
17. But a cruel expression of affection such as pulling of hair in public, even if the victim is one's wife or beloved may still shock the public morality. Such act of the husband may amount to an 'indecent act' because in the present set up with the emphasis on individuals' equality, personal rights, liberties and a flair for women liberation, it would be rather impossible to think that a woman will not resent such behaviour.
18. Further, under section 354 reference is made to "any woman" suggesting that a person may be held guilty of outraging the modesty of any woman including the one who is his wife.
19. In case the husband assaults or uses criminal force against her wife the act will amount to an outrage of modesty under section 354, irrespective of the fact whether it was done with or without her consent or in the absence of a third party.
14The question of husband's knowledge, intention or her developed sense under the modern set up would become irrelevant and a deliberate outrageous conduct of the husband is indefensible. It would thus seem to follow that a husband may be held guilty of an offence even under section 354 if the victim is a woman who is his wife.
20. In the present case, although the applicant claims that the prosecutrix is, his legally wedded wife and he wanted that she remains with him, therefore, he tries to convince her, however, if the aforesaid contention of the applicant is accepted in toto, even then applicant does not get any authority to took her forcefully without her wish, publicly abused her, caught hold her hand and followed her. Thus, prima facie case under Section 354, 354 (D), 341, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.
21. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the present petition is allowed in part, the FIR bearing Crime No.170/2019 registered at Police Station- Industrial Area, Ratlam against the applicant with respect to offence under Section 376, 376 (2)(n) of I.P.C. is hereby quashed. However, the FIR exists and trial shall remain continue regarding offence punishable under Section 354, 354(D), 341, 506 of I.P.C. against the applicant.
22. Let copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.10.18 11:26:04 -12'00'