Lalit Namdev vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Lalit Namdev – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 45128 of 2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel For The Applicant., for the Appellant; Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Learned Ga Appearing On Behalf Of Advocate General; And Shri Bhupendra Solanki, Learned Counsel For The Respondent [OBJ]., for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 - Anticipatory bail application - Allegations of sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage by the applicant against the prosecutrix who was a minor at the time of the incident - The applicant’s claim of a consensual live-in relationship dismissed as valid defense based on the minor’s age. (Paras 1, 2, 11)

(B) Consent - The court emphasized that the prosecutrix's consent is immaterial due to her age, rendering any agreement to a live-in relationship invalid. (Paras 8, 11)

(C) Evidence - Prima facie evidence indicated that the prosecutrix's allegations held merit, supporting the rejection of the bail application. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, apprehending arrest for alleged sexual offenses, claimed that the prosecutrix falsely implicated him after a consensual relationship, while the prosecutrix, as a minor at the time of the incident, alleged exploitation and blackmail.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant, leading to the dismissal of the bail application, emphasizing the minor's age and the nature of the allegations.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of consent given the prosecutrix's age and the implications of a live-in relationship under these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the age of the prosecutrix nullified her consent, categorically stating that a minor’s consent to sexual acts is not a defense under the IPC.

Result: The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. anticipatory bail application details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments from the applicant's counsel. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. allegations of extortion by prosecutrix. (Para 6)
4. opposition arguments by the objector and state. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. court's reasoning and decision-making. (Para 10 , 11)
6. conclusion and dismissal of anticipatory bail. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.464/2022 registered at P.S. - Nilganga, District Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 20.8.2022 prosecutrix made a written complaint before P.S.-Nilganga, District Ujjain (M.P.) by stating that on the pretext of marriage the applicant made physical relationship with her. In the year 2015 present applicant first time met her and after sometime he told her that he loves her and wants to marry with her. Due to physical relationship with the present applicant, prosecutrix became pregnant in the year 2020. When she asked for marriage, applicant every time has postponed the marriage. On 22/11/2022 she gave birth to a child and after that she came to know that applicant is already married but applicant continued to have physical relationship with her. After six months applicant denied for the marriage with her.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter.

4. Prosecutrix uses two different names in several documents.

5. Prosecutrix is a major lady. Prosecutrix has admitted that present applicant and she were living together in live-in-relationship for the past seven years and all the expenses of the prosecutrix have been borne by the applicant. Prosecutrix has filed an affidavit stating that she was living in live-in-relationship with the present applicant.

6. Prosecutrix has been blackmailing for the lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only). When applicant refused to give such amount then prosecutrix lodged an false FIR against applicant. He is a permanent resident of District Ashoknagar. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

7. In support of his contention learnd counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in case of Shreekanth Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala dated 06.10.2022 passed in CRL No.9201 of 2021.

8. Per-contra, counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that age of the prosecutrix is 22 years and at the time of incident she was minor. Therefore, her consent is immaterial. Applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. Hence, he does not deserve for anticipatory bail.

9. Counsel for the respondent/ State also opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

10. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order passed by the court below.

11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and also taking note of the fact that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident; agreement of live in relationship cannot be considered as a valid agreement. In view of the prima facie evidence available against the applicant, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

12. Accordingly, this MCRC is dismissed. C.C. as per rules.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document