SHIV SHANKAR SONI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dtd. 5/12/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I (Crime Against Women), Gorakhpur in Special Case No. 2133 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Shiv Shankar Soni), arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2022, 323, 504, 376 and 313 I.P.C., Police Station-Cantt. District-Gorakhpur, whereby the charges under Ss. 376, 313, 323 and 504 I.P.C. have been framed against the accused-revisionist and also the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist before the trial judge for discharge has not been considered.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(3.) Victim/informant/opposite party no.2 is a married lady and has developed physical relationship with the revisionist for a long period of four years with her own free will and without any pressure. The marriage of the victim/ informant was solemnized on 27/5/2015 with one Jay Singh and from the aforesaid wedlock, two children; (1) Ansh Singh (2) Shreyansh Singh were born, as is evident from the statements of Ramdaras Singh (real uncle of informant) and Smt. Babita devi (real sister of the victim informant) recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. As per the own statement of the informant/victim recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., after one year of her marriage, her husband Jay Singh used to quarrel with her in intoxicating state due to which the relation between the wife and husband i.e. informant and her husband became strained and incompatible. However it transpires from the statement of the informant/victim recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. that after two years of marriage, her husband Jay Singh went Abroad (OMAN) and thereafter the victim/ informant without divorcing her husband legally, had established physical relationship with the accused-revisionist on her own free will. Admittedly, the victim/ informant had remained in a consensual physical relationship with the revisionist for about 4 years without getting herself divorced with her husband Jay Singh and as such she had well within her knowledge that she could not marry the revisionist without divorce, as such the allegation made by the informant/victim against the revisionist that he had established physical relationship with her on the promise to marry her has no legs to stand. Such relationship comes within the definition of extra-marital relationship with the consent of both the parties and not within the ambit of offence under Sec. 376 I.P.C. Further allegation of the victim against the revisionist that from the physical relationship of the victim with the revisionist, a boy, namely, Shreyansh was born, also does not arise, as from the birth certificate issued by C.H.C. Kaptanganj the date of birth of Shreyansh Singh is 10/11/2019 showing parentage/father's name as Jay Singh, as such the said allegation has only been made to launch malicious criminal prosecution against the revisionist and just to blackmail and exploit him as he is a railway government servant having unmarried status.