IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondents
M. Cr. C. No. 42006 of 2019
Decided On : 04-03-2021
Section 482 - Quashment of FIR - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 - Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO) Section 3/4
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a petition seeking quashment of FIR for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant had sexual relations with her when she was below 18 years, but the applicant claimed they were married and the allegations were false.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in a friendly relationship, got married, and the allegations were part of a matrimonial dispute. The court also found lack of evidence to support the allegations under POCSO Act.
Issues: Allegations of sexual relations when the prosecutrix was below 18, validity of the marriage, and applicability of POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Consensual physical relationship, validity of marriage, lack of evidence, and distinction between rape and consensual sex.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and the final report.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Rusia, J.
1. The applicant has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of FIR No. 268/2019 dated 20.06.2019 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District Dhar for the offence punishable under Section 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence, Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO").
2. After filing, this petition Final Report (Chalan) has been filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 376, 376 (2) (n), 323, 294, 506, 450 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 and 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.
3. The facts of the case, in short, is that the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred as "Prosecutrix") submitted a written complaint to Mahila Thana Palasiya, Indore disclosing the commission of the offence as under:
4. The prosecutrix gave consent for medical examination. She was medically examined but no sign of force was found. The final opinion was kept pending awaiting the FSL report. The police have registered an FIR against the applicant on 20.06.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The applicant was arrested on 07.09.2019 and thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by this Court. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Rau has submitted a report dated 10.07.2019 and according to which semen was not found on nails, underwear and pubic hair but found on slide.
5. The police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, her mother Rajibai and her father Chamar Singh. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate was also recorded in which she has reiterated the same as in the written complaint. After completing the investigation, Final Report (Chalan) has been filed on 09.11.2019 for the offence under Section 376, 376 (2)(n), 323, 294, 506, 450 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 and 5L/6 of POCSO Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a constable and presently posted at 24th Battalion SAF, Jaora, District Ratlam. Even if the allegations made by the prosecutrix are accepted in their entirety no case against the applicant under Section 376, 386(2) (n), 294 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 is made out. The applicant had performed the marriage with the prosecutrix on 28.12.2018 by observing the necessary religious steps and the certificate has been issued by Akhil Vishwa Gayatri Pari
The distinction between rape and consensual sex, and the need for evidence to support allegations.
Consent in sexual relationships must be genuinely understood; presenting false pretenses may constitute a misconception but requires clear malicious intent to amount to rape.
It is necessary to examine FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class to find out correct factual matrix of issue - Sum and substance of decis....
The consent of a minor is of no consequence for the purpose of sexual relationship, and the allegations of sexual assault are not affected by subsequent events such as marriage.
A long-standing consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless there is evidence of coercion or deceit from the outset.
The distinction between consensual relations and rape lies in the perception and intention behind consent; the breach of a promise to marry does not equate to misconception if the relationship is con....
The High Court should not evaluate the truthfulness or correctness of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. The material relied on by the accused should be suff....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.