Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.13621/2022
(Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
Gwalior, Dated : 30/03/2022
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, learned counsel for the State.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No.159/2021 registered at Police Station
Anandpur, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 376, 376(2)(f),
376(2)(a), 366 and 201 of IPC as well as all consequential criminal
proceedings.
According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged a
report on 10/10/2021 on the allegation that she is prosecuting her
studies of B.Ed. at Guna college. The marriage of her brother took
place in the year 2018 and during that marriage she came in contact
with the applicant. Since, the talks regarding her engagement with the
applicant were going on, therefore, the applicant was on talking terms
with her and because of that they used to meet each other. When the
family members of respondent No.2 came to know about this
relationship, then respondent No.2 was married to one Hariom Parihar on 14/06/2020, but on account of some dispute with her husband, she came back to her parental home after 4 - 5 days of her marriage and from then, she is residing in her parental home and her case for grant of divorce from her husband is going on.
It was alleged that for 3 - 4 times, the applicant went to Lateri 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.13621/2022 (Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) to meet her. The applicant is working in engineering field and is posted at Jhabua. On 07/10/2021, the applicant had a talk with the prosecutrix on phone. The applicant requested her to come to Ujjain and they would marry and accordingly, the prosecutrix came to Ujjain from Vidisha by bus. It is alleged that the applicant instructed her on phone to wait for him at Railway Station and accordingly, in the night the applicant also came to Ujjain. It is alleged that on 10/10/2021, the applicant under the pretext of marriage committed rape on her and thereafter, told her that they would go to Guna for performing marriage. The applicant came to Guna alongwith the prosecutrix, but thereafter, he took a somersault and refused to marry her and left Guna.
On these allegations, the police registered, FIR in Crime No.99/2021 and the matter was transferred to Police Station Ujjain for investigation, where Crime No.156/2021 was registered and from there, the matter has been transferred to Police Station Anandpur, District Vidisha and Crime No.159/2021 has been registered. It is submitted that it is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. that the prosecutrix was already known to the applicant prior to her marriage with Hariom Parihar on 14/06/2020. It is alleged that even after the respondent No.2 got married, she is still residing in her parental 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.13621/2022 (Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) home and continued to meet with the applicant and had physical relationship. The respondent No.2 is a married woman and unless and until her marital ties are severed, she cannot perform second marriage with the applicant. The allegations of committing rape on the false pretext of marriage is false and since, the prosecutrix herself is a married woman, therefore, there cannot be any misconception of fact.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is not a case where the prosecutrix was in constant physical relationship with the applicant. If a girl is on talking terms with a boy, then said act of the girl would not give any license to the boy to physically violate her. The applicant was the brother-in-law of her brother, therefore, he was known her and even if, she went to Ujjain, then it cannot be said that she had gone there for having physical relationship with the applicant.
Furthermore, the applicant is posted in Jhabua and it appears that with a solitary intention to physically violate her, he came from Jhabua to Ujjain and committed rape on the prosecutrix and on the pretext of marriage, he brought her to Guna and then, refused to marry her and went away. It is submitted that when the prosecutrix has specifically alleged in the FIR that she was raped by the applicant on the pretext of marriage, then it cannot be said that she was a 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.13621/2022 (Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) consenting party.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The applicant has filed the documents in a sealed cover and accordingly, the sealed cover was opened and this Court went through the documents, which are nothing but the charge-sheet. The statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is in- conformity with the allegations made by her in the FIR.
In her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she had stated that when the applicant came to Ujjain, he had parked his vehicle in the parking area and committed rape on her in the car itself. She further stated that at 8:00 in the Morning, they left Ujjain for Guna and came to Guna at 3:30 in the Afternoon. Thereafter, they stayed back in the house of cousin brother of the applicant up to 10:00 in the Night. Thereafter, the applicant took her to Telghani Chauraha where he called his father and brother. It was further alleged that the applicant after leaving her at Telghani Chauraha went alongwith his brother and father to village Shergarh, District Guna, then the prosecutrix informed her brother on phone who took her to Police Station Mahila Thana, Guna. Thus, it is clear that the prosecutrix has alleged only a solitary incident of rape. Whether the act of the applicant is a mere breach of compromise or his intention was not to marry the prosecutrix right from very inception is a disputed question 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.13621/2022 (Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Had it been a case of physical relationship on multiple occasions, the matter could have been different. Even assuming that the prosecutrix went to Ujjain on the call given by the applicant, it cannot be presumed that by going to Ujjain she had given a license to the applicant to have physical relationship with her.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. The documents, which were kept in a sealed cover were again sealed in the same envelop.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.04.04 10:39:39 +05'30'