Allahabad High Court
Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43177 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajnish Singh @ Soni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Mishra,Nagendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Chandra Sinha,Rajesh Chandra Sinha Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opp. party no.2 and perused the record.
By moving this application, the prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1246 of 2022, State Vs. Rajnish Singh @ Soni, under sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Bakewar District Etawah, arising out of charge sheet in case crime no. 269 of 2022 including the cognizance order dated 10.11.2022.
As per the facts of the case, a first information report was lodged by opp. party no. 2 against the applicant on 5.7.2022 that both the parties are residents of the same village, they were the neighbours and well known to each other. In the year 2006, when opp. party no. 2 was alone in her house, the applicant entered her house and committed rape on her. When she told him to make a complaint to his and her parents, then the applicant accepted his mistake and said that he loved her very much and wanted to marry with opp. party no. 2. On the pretext of marriage, he further raped her many times. Later on the applicant got a job of a constable and after that he got a job of a clerk in State Bank of India and opp. party no. 2 also got an appointment as a lecturer in Central School. Then also the applicant called opp. party no. 2 telephonically and on the pretext of marriage after administering her some spurious material raped her, made her obscene video and clicked her nude photographs and on the basis of those objectionable materials, he began blackmailing her. He used to commit rape on her whenever and wherever he wanted to do so and when opp. party no. 2 became pregnant, she was forcibly administered some medicines and her pregnancy was terminated. In continuation of his blackmailing, he extorted Rs. 94000/- from opp. party no. 2 and when opp. party no. 2 made complaints to the higher authorities and at one stop centre, Lalitpur, the applicant sought excuses and gave an affidavit of solemnizing marriage in future with opp. party no. 2 and keeping her with him. Again on the basis of this false affidavit and on the basis of obscene video and photographs the applicant continued raping her. All his family members also assured opp. party no. 2 that the applicant would solemnize marriage with opp. party no. 2 only. But now the applicant has solemnized his marriage on 22.4.2022 with his colleague Namrata Verma and he is abusing her, giving threat of life. The applicant also assaulted opp. party no. 2.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that opp. party no. 2 is a major lady. She used to live, in the live-in relationship with the applicant. The relationship was consensuous. The parties lived in live-in relationship for about 16 years. When the applicant refused to solemnize marriage with opp. party no. 2 and solemnized his marriage somewhere else, this incident led to this FIR.
All the allegations in the FIR are denied by learned counsel for the applicant and it is submitted that the Apex Court in judgment of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 901, in the case of breach of promise of marriage where the lady was a consenting party, her FIR of alleging rape on her by the applicant was quashed, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 however opposed the prayer and submitted that physical relations with opp. party no. 2 were being made forcibly on the pretext of marriage and later on she was being blackmailed on the basis of obscene video and photographs. The opp. party no. 2 was given threat of life and further on the whats-app also the alleged victim is said to have given threat of life and she is also said to be abused regularly by the applicant.
From the perusal of the FIR itself, it is found that on the very first day in the year 2006, when the opp. party no. 2 was alone in her house, she is said to have been raped by the applicant and later on, on the pretext of marriage, she was continuously raped. There is allegation of preparing obscene videos and photographs. Whatsapp chatting between the parties is also placed before the court wherein an extremely abusive language is shown to be used by the applicant for opp. party no. 2. Again the alleged victim is said to have been given threat of life and even threat of committing rape on her mother. An affidavit before the police at one stop centre, regarding solemnizing marriage with the alleged victim prima facie shows the promise of marriage of the applicant with opp. party no. 2 to be a false. The relationships between the parties is said to be 16 years old and from the documents on record, it appears that the applicant was being pressurized for marriage and he was also making promise for this. The applicant also gave an affidavit in this regard at one stop centre that he was ready to solemnize marriage with opp. party no. 2 and even after this promise, he is said to have solemnize marriage with some other lady. Thus, on the basis of the FIR, it can not be said that a cognizable offence is not made out against the applicant. The facts of the present case are different in above manner from the facts of the judgment produced before the court by learned counsel for the applicant.
No case is made out for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1246 of 2022, State Vs. Rajnish Singh @ Soni, under sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Bakewar District Etawah, arising out of charge sheet in case crime no. 269 of 2022 including the cognizance order dated 10.11.2022.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, hence, it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2023 Gss