JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 143/2020 dated 20.10.2020 registered at Police Station-Industrial Area, Satlapur, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of contents of FIR and the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the fact that she has refused to get herself medically examined, it is clear that no case of Section 376 of IPC is made out against the present petitioner and as such, criminal proceedings initiated against him vide FIR No. 143/2020 are liable to be set aside.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.10.2020, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the present petitioner stating therein that on the false pretext of marriage, the petitioner developed physical relations with the prosecutrix against her wish. As per the prosecutrix, she was the resident of Gram Khanpura, Police Station Satlapur, District Raisen and while studying, she developed friendship with the present petitioner through face-book and thereafter in May, 2020, the parents of the petitioner and the prosecutrix met and they agreed to get their marriage solemnized and finally the marriage was settled. Thereafter, on 16.09.2020, the petitioner came to the house of the prosecutrix at Khanpura and remained there for few days. In between the petitioner asked prosecutrix to develop physical relations and on 17.09.2020, on the assurance of marriage, he developed physical relation with the prosecutrix which was continued so many times but on 20.10.2020, the petitioner refused to marry the prosecutrix and therefore, she went to the police station with her father and lodged the FIR.

4. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix, offence has been registered against the present petitioner. Although when prosecutrix was asked to get herself medically examined, she refused to do so. The report is available on record indicating that the prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined and thereafter, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same date, i.e. 22.10.2020 in which she has very categorically admitted this fact that the present petitioner did not develop any physical relation with her though he asked her for developing physical relation but she refused and, therefore, nothing was happened. She has further admitted that from the date of developing friendship on face-book till the submission of FIR, no physical relation has been developed between them.

5. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that no case of Section 376 of IPC is made out against the petitioner and as such, the proceedings initiated against him are liable to be set aside.

6. Ms. Supriya Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State although read over the case diary but is not in a position to dispute the factual position existing in the case.

7. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Under the similar facts and circumstances, this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 11456/2020(Madhur Baghrecha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) has dealt with the issue in detail considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of (2003) 4 SCC 46-Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2019) 9 SCC 608-Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 18 SCC 191-Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 108- Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand and 2021 SCC OnLine 181-Sonu alias Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Udai (supra) has dealt with the issue in detail considering the respective provisions of IPC i.e. Section 375 of IPC and Section 90 of IPC and has observed as under:-

'9. We may at the threshold notice the relevant provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, namely, Section 375 and Section 90 which read as fol