LAWS(BOM)-2013-11-146

PREMAL GAJENDRA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On November 20, 2013
Premal Gajendra Mehta Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was arrested on 17th October 2013 in C.R. No.388/2013 registered with Dindoshi Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 376, 354(A), 420, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The complainant alleges that after marriage was fixed between her and the applicant a formal ceremony was performed on 4th June 2012. Thereafter both started meeting each other at different places. Twice during such meetings i.e. on 9th July 2012 and on 27th July 2012, the applicant had sexual intercourse with her against her wish. Thereafter he broke the marriage and has married another girl.

(3.) Mr. Jariwala the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint filed is an absolutely false complaint. The marriage between the two had been cancelled after holding meeting of both the families. Thereafter in fact, complainant had advertised herself for the marriage in a magazine published by the community to which both belong. The reason, according to the applicant for breaking the marriage was the conduct of the complainant. It is alleged that the representation made that the complainant was a beautician by profession was false. She works in film industry and television as a backstage artist and was in relationship with one Mohit Khan a choreographer and editor of some serials. When her intimacy with Mohit Khan was found out, she made a pretence of giving it up but had in fact continued. Therefore, on 7th October 2012 a meeting of family members of both called and the proposed marriage was broken up. The complainant thereafter started harassing the applicant by taking help of police. She had approached the Commissioner of Police and National Human Rights Centre during the period January, 2013 to June 2013. In none of those several complaints, there is so much as a whisper about sexual assault. There are also advocates notices exchanged between the parties. The applicant has also produced copies of all such complaints as also the notices exchanged between the parties through their advocates.