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

2023 Supreme(MP) 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J.
Santosh Kumar Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 21390 of 2023 (Gwalior); Decided on 4.7.2023

Advocates appeared:
Rajiv Sharma with Hemant Rana for applicant; Neeraj Dhamanya, Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1/State; Vibhor Kumar Sahu for complainant.

Headnote:

Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 376, 376 (2) (b), 376 (2) (n), 354 and 506 -- quashing of FIR -- complainant/prosecutrix in physical relationship with applicant for long period -- lodged FIR after more than one month of incident -- on alleged date of incident, prosecutrix herself went with applicant to hotel situated on highway -- cannot be said that her consent was obtained by misconception of facts -- FIR and other consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed. AIR 2013 SC 2071, AIR 2016 SC 406, (2003) 4 SCC 46, (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903, AIR 2021 SC 1405 and 2019 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) SC 52 followed. 2020 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 260, M. Cr. C. No. 11363 of 2016 decided on 18.5.2017, Cr. C. No. 16158 of 2019 decided on 18.7.2019 (Indore) and M. Cr. C. No. 45389 of 2021 decided on 28.3.2022 referred to. [Paras 8 & 9

naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 376] 376¼2½ ¼[k½] 376¼2½ ¼ढ½] 354 rFkk 506 & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ dk vfÒ[kaMu & f'kdk;rdrkZ@vfÒ;¨D=h d¢ vkosnd d¢ lkFk yacs le; ls 'kkjhfjd lacaèk & ÄVuk ls ,d ekl ls Òh vfèkd le; i'pkr~ çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky dh & ÄVuk d¢ vfÒdfFkr fnukad d¨ vfÒ;¨D=h Lo;a vkosnd d¢ lkFk jktekxZ fLFkr g¨Vy esa xà & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mldh lEefr rF;¨a d¢ Òze ls vfÒçkIr dh xà & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ rFkk mlls mn~Òwr vU; ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokfg;ka vfÒ[kafMrA , vkb vkj 2013 ,l lh 2071] , vkb vkj 2016 ,l lh 406] ¼2003½ 4 ,l lh lh 46] ¼2019½ 3 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 903] , vkb vkj 2021 ,l lh 1405 rFkk 2019 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼fØ-½ ,l lh 52 vuqlfjrA 2020 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼fØ-½ 260] çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 11363 lu~ 2016 fu.kÊr fnukad 18-5-2017] çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 16158 lu~ 2019 fu.kÊr fnukad 18-7-2019 ¼ban©j½ rFkk çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 45389 lu~ 2021 fu.kÊr fnukad 23-8-2022 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½

ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashment of FIR registered as Crime No.132/2023 at Police Station -Kampoo, District- Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(b), 376(2)(n), 354 and 506 of IPC and other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.4.2023, prosecutrix/complainant lodged a computerized complaint at Police Station Kampoo, District- Gwalior (M.P.) alleging that she is aged 23 years and she is student of B.Sc. in K.R.G. Collage. In the year 2022, she was 2nd year of B.Sc. when she was introduced to the applicant who was the professor and was holding the post of H.O.D. Of Biotechnology. She was under stress due to failure of her second year paper then the applicant came in her contanct and they became friends and applicant assured her that if she would obey him, he would get her passed in the exams in future and also make her professor in the collage. Thereafter, applicant and prosecutrix exchanged their mobile numbers and started talking on mobiles phones. Thereafter, on 9.4.2022, applicant called her in his chamber and molested her with bad intention. When the prosecutrix objected the same, applicant threatened her to spoil her career, due to which, she did not tell about this anybody. Thereafter, applicant started calling her at collage any time again and again and kissing and touching with bad intention. On 27.2.2023, applicant took her from the Collage to his friend's hotel situated at Dabra highway by his car bearing Registration No.MP07-PA-5181 and committed rape with her forcefully and threatened her not to tell about this to her family members. Thereafter, he left her at the temple of Mandre Ki Mata. Thereafter, on 5.4.2023, applicant called the prosecutrix by making phone upon her mother's mobile and took her again to his friend's hotel situated at Dabra highway and committed rape with her forcefully and at about 4:00 p.m., applicant left the prosecutrix at Kampoo and he threatened to kill her and her family members if she narrated the incident to anyone. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant. She was sent for medical examination. Nothing adverse has been found on the body of the prosecutrix. Statements were recorded. Thereafter, applicant was arrested on 6.4.2023. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix on 6.4.023 after more than one month of the incident i.e. 27.2.2023 with mala-fide intention just to take undue benefit. The complainant/prosecutrix is a major lady aged 23 years and she is well versed with pros and cons of making friendship with the male person. She knew the applicant very well for last one year. She has made physical relations with the applicant on her own consent and free will. The prosecutrix was in relationship with applicant over a significant period of time, therefore, consent of the prosecutrix is not obtained by misrepresentation. Just to take undue benefit, she has lodged a false FIR. It is further submitted that if prosecutrix was exploited by the applicant without her consent, being a major girl, first of all, she had to lodge the FIR against him or tell her parents about this but she did not it. She knew the applicant from last one year when she was studying in the year 2022 and if any woman continues to remain in physical relationship for a long period, then it cannot be said that her consent was obtained by misconception of fact. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 2071, Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2016 SC 406, Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903, Sonu @ Subha

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