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

2013 Supreme(Raj) 148

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
HON'BLE SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Farook Ahmed (Dr.)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 856 of 2012, decided on 05.04.2013

Advocates Appeared
Shailendra Kala, for Petitioner;
Chandralekha, P.P., for Respondent-State;
M.P. Solanki, for Respondent No. 2

Headnote:(a) Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 and 227 — Framing charges — Whether the documents of the accused can be considered by the High Court for quashing the proceeding at the initial stage? — Held — No impediment on the powers of High Court — A document which is unimpeachable in nature, can be considered by High Court if it demonstrates that the case set up against the accused is totally false, absured or has been filed for oblique motives. (Paras 10 & 11)

       ¼d½ na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 482 o 227 & vkjksi fojfpr djuk & D;k vfHk;qDr ds nLrkostksa ij mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkjfEHkd voLFkk dh dk;Zokgh dks vfHk[kf.Mr djus gsrq fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & mPp U;k;ky; dh 'kfDr;ksa ij dksbZ izfrcU/k ugha & dksbZ Hkh nLrkost tks funksZ"k izd`fr dk gks rks ml ij mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS] ;fn og ;g izdV djrk gS fd vfHk;qDr ds fo:) rS;kj fd;k x;k izdj.k iw.kZ:is.k feF;k] gkL;kLin gS ;k dqfVy gsrq ds fy, nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

        ¼in la[;k 10 o 11½


       (b) Penal Code, Sec. 375 Clause Fourthly — Scope — Person commits intercourse with the lady poses himself to be her husband knowingly that he is not the husband of the lady — Scope — Prosecutrix admitted that she entered into a NATA marriage with the petitioner and thereafter is alleged to have established sexual relations — Held — Petitioner not posed as somebody else and then established sexual relations — Allegations of prosecutrix do not constitute the offence of rape. (Paras 16 & 17)

       Revision petition allowed.

       ¼[k½ n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 375 prqFkZ [k.M & O;kfIr & ,d O;fDr dk ml efgyk ds lkFk Lo;a dks mldk ifr gksuk n'kkZrs gq, lgokl djuk ;g tkurs gq, fd og ml efgyk dk ifr ugha gS & O;kfIr & vfHk;ksfD= us ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus ml izkFkhZ ds lkFk ukrk fookg fd;k rFkk mlds ckn gh dfFkr ySafxd lEcU/k LFkkfir fd;s x;s & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks dksbZ vU; O;fDr gksuk n'kkZrs gq, ySafxd lEcU/k LFkkfir ugha fd;s & vfHk;ksD=h ds vfHkdFku cykRdkj ds vijk/k dk xBu ugha djrsA

       iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 16 o 17½

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 114/2012 whereby charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. have been framed against the petitioner.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. C filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur on 13.2.2011 alleging inter alia that she contracted a nata marriage with the petitioner as per Hindu rituals and customs at the Village Jhambeshwar Nagar Dhelana on 5.3.1992. She alleged that the nata marriage was performed in the presence of some 12-13 persons in the Panchayat Bhawan of Village Dhelana. She further alleged that from the wedlock, a son named Vipin was born to the complainant and was a student of 10th standard. She further alleged that the accused cheated her and thereby induced her into marrying him by giving her a fraudulent assurance that he had converted to Hindu religion. She further alleged that she was a divorce and as per Hindu customs and usages, only a nata marriage was possible and, therefore, she entered into the nata marriage with the accused. She further alleged that the act of the accused resulted into destruction of the moral fabric of the complainant. The religious sentiments of the complainant were hurt. The act was totally aimed at establishing an illicit relationship with her.

4. Later on, the accused allegedly informed her that he continued to profess the Muslim religion. As per the complainant, the act of the accused in establishing sexual relations by giving her a fraudulent inducement regarding conversion to Hindu religion, was an act punishable under Sections 376 and 419 IPC. The complainant further alleged that for the purpose of establishing the paternity of her children, she requested for a DNA test but the accused did not accede to the same. She further alleged that the accused established the immoral physical relations with her continuously from 5.3.1992 upto the year 2001 and thereafter, turned her out of the house telling her that he had established the relations just for satisfying his lust, that he was not a Hindu by religion and also that he did not consider the complainant to be his wife. She also alleged that on 21.10.2011, she went to the P.S. Desuri for receiving the maintenance amount for her son and there the accused came with 2-3 persons and threatened the complainant that he would not accept the demand of the complainant to undergo the DNA examination. The accused also threatened the complainant to remove his name from Vipin's school record. She further alleged that in order to cheat her, the accused, despite having a subsisting Nata marriage with the complainant, contracted yet another marriage with one Taslim Bano d/o Gulam Qadir, r/o Pulwama, District Srinagar. She further alleged that on 8.11.2011, when she was going on her scooty, the accused with his companions came in a car and accosted the complainant and threatened her that she should withdraw the cases which were going on in different courts.

5. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded to the P.S. Basni, Jodhpur where an FIR No. 23/2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 376, 419, 420, 494 and 495 I.P.C. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. After committal, the petitioner contested the question of charges before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan but the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 6.9.2012 directed framing of the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking quashing of the order framing charges by way of the instant revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend



































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