NISHANT BIPINBHAI TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused No.1 seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.64 of 2016 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Surat arising from a First Information Report being IC. R. No.49 of 2015 registered with the Umra Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 406, 420 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution may be summarised as under: 2. 1 On 26th February 2015, the respondent No.2 herein lodged a First Information Report at the Umra Police Station, Surat. The free English translation of the same reads as under: Date 26.02.2015

(3.) Thus, the sum and substance of the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are that the consent given by the victim was under a misconception of fact that the applicant accused herein would marry her and give her the status of a lawfully wedded wife. Mr. Popat, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of rape are spelt out. According to Mr. Popat, his client, all through out the relationship, was quite serious and wanted to get married to the victim. However, certain unreasonable demands were made by the victim, which, ultimately, led to the breakdown. According to Mr. Popat, if the applicant was at all serious in getting married to the victim, then he would have bought a flat in the name of the victim. Mr. Popat submits that the prosecution instituted at the instance of the first informant is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. He submits that the victim, on her own free will and volition and with eyes wide open, entered into a relationship, which continued for almost a period of three years. After a period of three years of live-in-relationship and termination of pregnancy twice, the victim cannot cry foul of being raped or exploited sexually. He submits that if an educated girl, with all sense of understanding, consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage, the same could be termed as an act of promiscuity on her part and an act induced by misconception of fact. He submits that Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be called in aid in such a case to pardon the act of woman and fasten the criminal liability on the other, unless the Court can be assured that from the very inception, the accused never really intended to marry her.