The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to establish the essential elements of the offenses under Sections 493, 496, and 506 I.P.C., emphasizing the principles of deceit, fraudulent intention, and criminal intimidation.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) :

1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 17.07.2023, summoning the applicant to face trial and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.33 of 2019: Vinita Chaudhari Vs. Pragat Gupta, under Sections 493, 496 & 506 I.P.C. Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC-III, Raebareli.

3. The opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint dated 07.01.2019, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. stating that there was a friendship between the opposite party no.2 and the applicant. The applicant visited Raebareli thrice to meet the complainant and asked her to marry him. He went to the house of the complainant and expressed his desire to marry the complainant before her mother also. He gave copies of his educational certificates to the complainant's mother and the complainant had given photocopies of her educational certificates to the applicant.

4. The applicant made a phone call to the complainant at about 2.00 p.m. on 14.05.2018 and called her to make her meet his parents. The complainant went to Bachhrawan by bus from where the applicant took her to a garage, put sindoor (Vermilion) on her head and said that very soon he will perform court marriage with her. In spite of the complainant's objection he forcibly raped her in garage. The applicant thereafter kept on avoiding to marry her on one pretext or the other and in the month of July he met the complainant at Raebareli and deleted whatsapp chat records from her mobile phone. When the complainant presurrized the applicant to marry her then on 28.08.2018 he stated that he would not continue any relation with her.

5. It is stated in the complainant that the complainant had earlier lodged an F.I.R. No.635 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. in Police Station Bachhrawan. Her medico legal examination was conducted on 03.10.2018 and thereafter the police pressurized her to enter into a settlement but she declined the same. Thereafter, her statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She stated that the police was not carrying out investigation in furtherance of the F.I.R. properly and was threatening her to file a final report in case she does not enter into a settlement and therefore she was filing complaint.

6. From the averments made in the complaint, it appears that the complainant was filed when the investigation in furtherance of an F.I.R. lodged by the complainant on same set of allegations was still pending.

7. In her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant supported the complaint allegations and she stated that on 14.05.2018 the applicant had forcibly put sindoor on her head, raped her and promised to marry her but he did not marry her. She further stated that she knows the applicant for the past one and half years. She had made him meet her parents and the applicant had asked her parent about marrying her. Both of them used to talk to each other till 26.08.2018, on which date he told telephonically that he was severing his relations with the complainant.

8. The statements of the complainant's mother and uncle were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 27.07.2019 and they reiterated the version of complaint. One Medical Officer of Community Health Centre, Bachhrawan was also examined as a witness and she had stated that she had medically examined the complainant on 03.10.2018 but as four and half months had elapsed since after the alleged incident she could not give any specific opinion regarding commission of rape. A Sub-Inspector was also examined by the complainant who had proved the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant.

9. The Station