The central legal point established in the judgment is that allegations should be credible and not inherently improbable, and the court can quash frivolous and vexatious litigation.

ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR registered against the petitioner and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.207/2019 registered at Police Station Bajranggarh District Guna for offence under Sections 376, 506 of IPC.

2. An FIR got registered by respondent No.2/complainant/prosecutrix on 04-12-2019 who happens to be a lady aged 41 years against the petitioner, a male aged 55 years for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC with the allegations that her husband Mukesh died in 1999 leaving two children. Since petitioner was issueless from his first marriage with his wife Sheela Bai, he induced her to marry so that he can maintain her children born out of first wedlock of prosecutrix and with that inducement he brought her to Bajranggarh and without her consent committed rape in the month of May, 2001 with her as a result whereof she became pregnant and out of such relation, one child namely Harsh was born. Thereafter petitioner used to have physical relationship with her continuously and when after four years she came back to Gwalior then also petitioner used to call her for intermittent payments towards her maintenance amount and used to commit rape and threatened her with dire consequences. Presently she is living with her child Harsh at Gwalior, another child born out of the wedlock of petitioner and complainant and therefore, filed this complaint against the petitioner.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and trial is under consideration.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that from the very contents of FIR, improbable event has been conceptualized by prosecutrix and case suffers from vexatious litigation just to harass petitioner. In 2001, she came in the contact of petitioner and out of their relationship, if child was born who happens to be 20 years old by now then it is highly improbable that she remained silent for such long years and after 18 years she raised her voice. Story indicates false allegations.

5. It is further submitted that petitioner and respondent No.2 both belong to Scheduled Caste and as per their customs Natra (social customs like live-in/marriage) was performed in which with consent of his first wife Sheela Bai, he lived with both of his wives and when despite instance of prosecutrix, petitioner did not part his whole property in favour of prosecutrix, then these false allegations have been levelled.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed written synopsis in which he annexed copy of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecutrix against the present petitioner before Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in which she mentioned the fact that with petitioner marriage was solemnized on 13-06-2001 through Hindu Rites and Rituals and thereafter they lived together till July, 2019 and now petitioner has removed her from his family household and therefore, she is living in her maternal home, therefore, seeking maintenance to sustain herself. Such divergent admission of facts itself renders the case doubtful. He relied upon Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 2071, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 SC 327, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 SC 4010.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of this petition on the ground that trial will decide the fate of the case.

8. This is a case where petitioner is facing heat of trial on the basis of allegations so levelled by the prosecutrix over her for offence under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. Contents of FIR reproduced for ready reference:

9. Similarly perusal of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed at the instance of petition