MOHD. IRSHAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and states that the Applicant has been in a relationship with the Respondent No. 2 /Prosecutrix, with her consent since the year 2015. The FIR has been registered by the Prosecutrix against the Applicant in the year 2019. A perusal of the order passed by the Ld. Court below reflects that the Prosecutrix, the Respondent No. 2 herein, was earlier in a live-in relationship with another man whom she never married, and from whom she has a child. The child is stated to be living with the father. The Prosecutrix met the Applicant on Facebook and from there the acquaintance grew into a romantic relationship leading to physical intimacy between the Prosecutrix and the Applicant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Prosecutrix, has vociferously opposed this application. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, the Applicant who was working in middle east at the point of time when he befriended the prosecutrix over Facebook, came to India and invited the Prosecutrix to meet him at the hotel where he was staying. She went to the hotel to meet him. There she had a headache and was not feeling well. She states that she was given medicines and that she stayed the whole night in the hotel with the Applicant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the stand taken by the Prosecutrix is preposterous and unbelievable. He states that the Prosecutrix waited for four years before registering the FIR. Learned counsel for the Prosecutrix/objector submits that in the I.A bearing number 3249/2020 he has filed documents to show that the Prosecutrix and the Applicant had even proceeded to the point of getting a register marriage done. He also states that he has filed documents pertaining to the 'chatting' that had taken place between her and the Applicant. This digital copy of the said I.A has not been received by this court. However, accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the objector, the documents and its contents are accepted as true and correct. According to the learned counsel for the objector, the Applicant did not disclose or rather, falsely stated that he was single. However, she later came to know that the Applicant was a married man.