SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 1025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Vishal Goyal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2232 of 2018
Decided On : 08-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Mahesh Bora, Adv., Ajay Vyas, Adv., V.S. Rajpurohit, Adv., Ugam Singh, Adv., Rosen Gusar, Adv.

JUDGMENT

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that present misc. petition may kindly be allowed, FIR No.23/2018 dated 12.05.2018 lodged at Police Station, Ramdevra, District Jaisalmer, registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 376, 313, 384 IPC and Sections 3(1)(b), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of this case necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that the complainant/respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the SHO, Police Station, Balotra, District Barmer regarding making false promise to marry and establishing sexual relationship on the pretext of such false promise of marriage.

3. The complainant had alleged in the complaint that four years ago, while the complainant was coming from her exams at Marwar Engineering College, she received a message from the petitioner on her mobile phone. The petitioner had enquired about her exams and further gave a missed call to the complainant, upon which the complainant called back to enquire from the petitioner as to who he was. The complainant further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner asked her if she was married or not, and upon being told that she was unmarried, the petitioner proposed her for marriage.

4. The complainant also stated in the complaint that she told the petitioner that she will consult her family members and thereafter let him know. The complainant thereafter, met the petitioner when she came to Jodhpur, while the complainant's sister was undertaking an Exam of B.Ed., and they both decided to get married, which was also acceptable to the mother of the complainant. The complainant has further averred in the complaint that the petitioner and the complainant went together to Ratanada Ganesh Mandir, and second time they went to find hostel for the complainant's sister. It was further averred that they went to see movie, also went to a guest house, Mandor Garden, Santoshimata Mandir, a Restaurant at Mahamandir, Machia Safari Park, Jodhpur Fort etc. The fact of the petitioner and the complainant going to Ramdevra and checking into a hotel, where the petitioner made physical relations with the complainant by making a false promise of marriage, inspite of the complainant not giving any consent to make such relation, has also been averred.

5. As per the complainant, physical relations thereafter continuously remained between the petitioner and the complainant, and the petitioner has consented that he shall marry the complainant. The complainant further alleged that she became pregnant and had to abort such pregnancy in about two months. The complainant further stated that her mother also enquired from the petitioner about the proposal for marriage, whereupon the petitioner accepted that he shall marry the complainant as soon as the petitioner gets a job. Thereafter, the petitioner's phone started remaining busy and he stopped taking calls from the complainant, and also he backed out from the promise of marriage.

6. Thereafter, FIR No.07/2018 was lodged at Police Station, Balotra, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 376, 313 & 384 IPC and Sections 3(1)(b) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. Mr.Mahesh Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Ajay Vyas appearing for the petitioner has shown to this Court some of the messages of the complainant, which reflect that she initially wanted to marry one Mukesh and when Mukesh did not marry her, she sent messages to the petitioner and told the petitioner to help


































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top