[1]

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

+

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 3307/2022

Between:-

GAURAV KUMAR CHAUDHARY,

S/O SH. SITARAM CHOUDHARY,

R/O RZ - 12, GALI NO. 1, DABRI,

PALAM ROAD, VISHALI, DABRI

DWARKA, NEW DELHI – 110045 ........PETITIONER

AND

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….... RESPONDENT NO. 1

TXXXXI, THE PROSECUTRIX,

W/O KITOI CHISO,

R/O H. NO. – 223, ROOM NO. – 100

MUNIRKA VILLAGE, KISHAN GARH,

SOUTH WEST, NEW DELHI–110067...RESPONDENT NO. 2

(Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

%

Pronounced on

: 20.09.2022

J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeks for quashment of FIR No. 295/2021,

2022:DHC:3751

[2]

under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered at Police

Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating

therefrom

2. The facts of the case are that in May, 2020 the petitioner and

prosecutrix started knowing each other being face-book friends. They

first time met on 31.05.2020 and thereafter started frequently meeting

each other. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner

proposed the prosecutrix for marriage. On 14.06.2020 the petitioner

made sexual relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage.

The petitioner, thereafter, also made physical relations with the

prosecutrix and as and when the prosecutrix used to raise her voice, she

was told that he would marry her and there was nothing wrong in having

pre-marital sexual intercourse. It is alleged that believing the petitioner,

the prosecutrix continued to have sexual relations for about one year and

during the said period the petitioner and the prosecutrix visited the native

place of the prosecutrix at Dimapur, Nagaland expressing their interest to

marry. It is alleged that during the aforesaid period the petitioner got the

prosecutrix aborted two times against her will. However, on 28.05.2021,

the petitioner suddenly without telling anyone has left the prosecutrix

and when the prosecutrix tried to call her, she found that her number was

blocked. It is alleged that since the petitioner promised to marry,

therefore, the prosecutrix made sexual relations with the petitioner. After

registration of the FIR the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164

of Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the police

has submitted the charge sheet before the competent court and the matter

is pending at the stage of framing of charge.

2022:DHC:3751

[3]

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that

no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out as the prosecutrix was

well aware about the subsistence of her earlier marriage. According to

him, sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was

consensual and based on their free will. He submits that there is no

reason for any false promise, as the prosecutrix was already married. He

placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the cases of Mohit

Nagar v. State and Anr.¹,Mohit Narula v. State of NCT of Delhi &

Anr.²,Rahul Mishra v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.³and

Sabhajeet Maurya v. State NCT of Delhi⁴. He submits that in all these

cases prosecution for offence under Sections 376 and 313 of IPC has

been quashed by this court in exercise of power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. under the similar circumstances.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently

opposed the instant petition. He submits that the same is not maintainable

at this stage. According to him, the stage of framing of charge has not

yet reached and the petitioner can raise all his points before the court at

the time of framing of charge. He further submits that on acco