JUDGMENT

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashement of FIR in Crime No.24/2020 registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind for offence under Section 354 , 323, 294 and 506 of IPC.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a retired Army Personnel. The wife of the applicant was teased by the husband of the complainant and accordingly, an FIR was lodged against Prahlad Jatav husband of the respondent No.2. He was tried for an offence under Section 354 -A of IPC and by judgment dated 08/02/2016 passed in criminal case No.2247/2014, the husband of the complainant was convicted under Section 354 -A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, the husband of the respondent No.2 preferred a criminal appeal, which was registered as CRA No.77/2016 and was partially allowed by judgment dated 18/07/2017 and in lieu of the jail sentence, the husband of the respondent No.2 was punished with fine of Rs.4,000/-. It is further submitted that another FIR in Crime No.140/2019 was lodged by the wife of the applicant against the husband of the respondent No.2 and two more persons for offence under Sections 452 , 323, 506, 294 and 34 of IPC. It is submitted that the husband of the respondent No.2 is facing trial for the said offence. It is further submitted that thereafter, the husband of the respondent No.2 had raped the wife of the applicant and since, the police had registered the offence under Section 323 and other minor offences, therefore, on 05/03/2020, the applicant came to High Court at Gwalior Bench and filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which has been registered as MCRC No.11008/2020. It is submitted that by the impugned FIR in Crime No.24/2020, which has been lodged by the respondent No.2 at Police Station Ater, District Bhind, it has been alleged that the applicant had outraged the modesty of the respondent No.2 and thus, an offence under Section 354 , 323, 294, 506 of IPC has been registered.

4. Challenging the said FIR, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant as under:-

(1) That the FIR in question has been lodged by way of counter blast and is a product of malafides of the complainant/respondent No.2.

(2) That, according to the FIR in Crime No.24/2020, the offence was allegedly committed some times in between 19 to 19:15, but the FIR was lodged on 05/03/2020 at 18:00. Thus, it is clear that the FIR was lodged after due deliberations.

(3) The applicant was not present in the village and he had come to Gwalior to file MCRC No.11008/2020, therefore, it is clear that the FIR has been lodged on false allegations.

5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is the case of the applicant that there is a bad blood between the applicant and respondent No.2 as well as her husband. According to the applicant himself, he has lodged several FIRs against the husband of the respondent No.2 and it is also alleged that even the wife of the applicant raped by the husband of the respondent No.2, but the police did not lodge the report for offence under Section 376 of IPC.

8. During the course of arguments, it was also conceded by the counsel for the applicant that even in the year 2021 several petitions were filed by the applicant. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR in question is a direct outcome of the malafides of the complainant and thus, it is liable to be quashed.

9. To substantiate his submissions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

10. So far as the question of malafides of a complainant is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 has held that if, the FIR discloses t