Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.
NITESH RAGHUVANSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. and another – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 34068 of 2019
Decided On : 28-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar Goswami
For the Respondent: R. K. Upadhyay
Crimes against a woman's body, especially rape, cannot be compromised or settled, and the minor's consent is immaterial in cases of sexual offenses.
Headnote:
FIR Quashment - Marriage with Minor - Indian Penal Code, POCSO Act - 376(2)(n), 5(l), 6
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was accused of repeatedly having physical relations with a minor under the pretext of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child who died. The applicant claimed to have married the complainant and sought quashment of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the applicant's claim that marriage with the complainant warranted quashment of the FIR, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses and the immateriality of the minor's consent.
Issues: Validity of quashment based on marriage with a minor, impact of the minor's consent, and the seriousness of the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that crimes against a woman's body, especially rape, cannot be compromised or settled, emphasizing the non-permissibility of liberal approaches in such cases. The court also highlighted the immateriality of the minor's consent in cases of sexual offenses.
Final Decision: The petition for quashment of the FIR was dismissed, and the court emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and the immateriality of the minor's consent in such cases.
JUDGMENT :
1. Shri Sushil Kumar Goswami, counsel for the applicant.
Shri R. K. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1/ State. This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 377 of 2018 registered at Police Station Basoda City, District Vidisha for offence under section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [in short POCSO Act].
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that on 24-7-2018, a FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix/complainant that she is the resident of Village Pachama, Basoda, District Vidisha and in the year 2017 she was studying in Class-IX and she used to go to the school by walking. The applicant was working in ICICI Bank and used to visit her village in the house of his relative Bhavani Singh Raghuvanshi, who is resident of her village Pachama, Basoda. By the passage of time, she fell in love and the applicant used to have physical relations with her on the pretext that he would marry her and thereafter, he did not marry her, therefore, on her report, the applicant was arrested on 24-3-2017. Thereafter, the applicant pursued the complainant to change her version on the pretext that he would marry her and thereafter, relying on the assurance given by the applicant, the complainant changed her statement. The applicant was released on bail and he again had physical relations with her. Thereafter, on 27-6-2018, she went to Basoda in order to attend the marriage of one Raju Kushwah, where the applicant had physical relations with her for the last time on the pretext that he would marry her. Thus, it was alleged by the complainant that she is minor and because of continuous physical relations developed by the applicant, she has become pregnant but now, the applicant has refused to marry her. On this allegation, the FIR for offence under section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act was registered in Crime No. 377 of 2018 by police station Basoda City, District Vidisha.
3. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on the false allegations. On 18-3-2019, the applicant has married the complainant and now, they are living their life peacefully and accordingly, the FIR be quashed. In support of his contention, the applicant has filed the copy of marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhagirathpura, Indore, which indicates that on 18-3-2019, the marriage of the applicant with the complainant has been performed. It is further submitted that at present also, the complainant is pregnant and in case, if the FIR is not quashed, then the life of the applicant as well as of the complainant would be ruined and as the applicant has married the complainant, therefore, there is no possibility of his conviction and, therefore, the FIR be quashed.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 1-2-2001 and the FIR was lodged on 24-7-2018. Thus, even on the date of lodging of FIR, the prosecutrix was minor. Further, the allegations are that from the year 2017, the applicant was continuously having physical relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and on earlier occasion also, the applicant was tried for offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that after the FIR was lodged, the prosecutrix had given birth to a child who died after two days. It is further submitted that the applicant has married the prosecutrix, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under section 299 of Criminal Procedure Code and he is still absconding.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. According to the prosecution case, the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix on 24-7-2018 and as per the mark sheet of Class-I
