Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Chaina Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3338 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2017
Penal Code – Sections 90 313 375 376, 420, 315 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 – Backing Out From Promise of Marriage After Consensual Relationship – This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the registration and investigation in the matter of FIR registered at Police Station, for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 315 and 120-B IPC – Facts of the case, are that respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint before the SHO, Police Station, against – While she was having a dispute with her husband, the present petitioner assured her of all possible help and also intended to solemnize marriage with the complainant, as disclosed to the family members – The petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant lived together, and during such period, it is alleged that twice abortion was carried upon the respondent No. 2 – However, they continued to stay together – The petitioner thereafter, went back from his promise to marry the complainant and left the complainant, and thus, allegedly, he committed sexual intercourse by inducing the complainant to solemnize marriage with her – Respondent No. 2 admittedly, was married, but when she fell out of the marriage, she consensually stayed with the present petitioner – Held, From the above mentioned authoritative pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court, the position of law emerges that in the event that the accuseds promise is not false and has not been made with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape – In the impugned FIR, the respondent No. 2 has not alleged that the petitioner has no intention to marry her since beginning – Court is convinced that from bare reading of initial written complaint and the contents of the impugned FIR, no offences under sections 376 and 313 IPC are made out – After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that when it is admitted that respondent No. 2/complainant and the present petitioner were residing together in a live-in relationship, after marriage of respondent No. 2 went bad, and initially, there was inducement to marriage, but the relationship between respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner did not materialize to marriage and thus, compelled the respondent No. 2 to lodge the present FIR, whereas all the previous acts were consensual and cannot be permitted to fall within the ambit of any kind of criminal activity – Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is convinced, on a bare look at the FIR and the material collected by the police, that the same is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences, and therefore, the continuance of the impugned FIR and any proceeding pursuant thereto is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the court and the same is thus liable to be quashed – Consequently, the present misc. petition is allowed and FIR registered at Police Station, for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 315 and 120-B IPC and entire proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside – Petition Allowed
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the registration and investigation in the matter of FIR No. 383/2016 registered at Ratanada Police Station, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 315 and 120-B IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint before the SHO, Police Station, Ratanada, Jodhpur against the petitioner with the allegation that the marriage of the complainant had been solemnized with one Shiva Ram. While she was having a dispute with her husband, the present petitioner assured her of all possible help and also intended to solemnize marriage with the complainant, as disclosed to the family members. The petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant lived together, and during such period, it is alleged that twice abortion was carried upon the respondent No. 2. However, they continued to stay together, firstly, in a hotel, and thereby, in a rented premises. The petitioner thereafter, went back from his promise to marry the complainant and left the complainant, and thus, allegedly, he committed sexual intercourse by inducing the complainant to solemnize marriage with her. Respondent No. 2 admittedly, was married to Shiva Ram, but when she fell out of the marriage, she consensually stayed with the present petitioner.
3. The facts of this case are akin to the precedent law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Anup K. Paul vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2016 Cri. L.J. 509, relevant paras of which read as under:-
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Courts. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) has later on followed in various decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591, State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, Medical Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122."
The principles relevant are as under:
"(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala-fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
