ORDER

1. They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime No.47 of 2020, under sections 376, 294 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, Palasia, Indore on 21.07.2020, as also the subsequent charge-sheet filed in the case, which is pending before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore as S.T. No.95 of 2021.

3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 21.7.2020, an FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the present petitioner under sections 376, 294 and 506 of IPC, stating that she is a resident of Indore and is a divorcee having a four years' old son, residing with her mother, brother and sister-in-law. Further, her case is that she wanted to settle in life once again, and with this purpose to remarry, she uploaded her bio data on a matrimonial site for marriage and subsequently the present petitioner Sachin Jain showed his interest in her, and spoke to her on telephone and after satisfying that she is a divorcee started talking to her from 30.8.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner left for China and came back in the month of January, 2020, however, he spoke to her from his Chinese number and they also Chatted on his web Chat I.D. sachin32jain. Soon he proposed her and also told her that he would adopt her son and as he wanted to meet her, they met for the first time on 21.2.2020 where he took her to a Hotel and reiterated that he wants to marry her and also wants to adopt her son. Thereafter on 22.2.2020, he went to Dubai and after coming from Dubai on 29.2.2020, he met her in Indore and took her to some Hotel at Tukoganj, Indore, there he tried to get intimate with her, but as she protested, he consoled her that he would marry her, however, he did not do anything on that day and left her back to Tower Chauraha (Square). He also introduced her to his sister, brother-in-law and mother and when they also consented to their marriage, their relation became cordial and her son also started addressing the petitioner as his dad. On 26.6.2020, petitioner came to her house along with her mother, sister and brother-in-law to which the prosecutrix thought that he has come to fulfill his promise and take her to the upper floor to talk to her privately and took advantage of her. Thereafter, they left for Bhopal and from there the petitioner also called her to come to Bhopal where they would enjoy to which the prosecutrix refused as she said that as she has still not married to him, her family members would not allow her to go on her own, to which the petitioner got angry and started abusing her and also told her that he has already made contacts with many such women from the matrimonial site and threatened her with dire consequences and also blocked her and when she tried to call the petitioner's mother, sister and brother-in-law, they also blocked her phone number. Thus, the prosecutrix got scared and lodged the report alleging that the petitioner had sexually exploited her and she wants legal action against him.

4. Shri Vinay Saraf, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix as it is a absurd allegation that a person would rape a woman on the day when he would go to her house with a marriage proposal and introduced her to his family members, who were also sitting downstairs. In support of his contention, Senior Counsel has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 para 102 to submit that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

5. Senior Counsel has further submi