ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.11/2021 registered at Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 376(2) (n), 417, 506 of IPC.

(2.) It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was married to one Gabbar Goswami on 02/06/2011. Since behaviour of Gabbar Goswami was not cordial towards the prosecutrix and he was in habit of consuming ganja, liqour etc, as a result of which he became mentally and physically sick. Whenever the prosecutrix requested her husband to leave the ill-habits, then he used to abuse her and beat her. The applicant who is Jeth (elder brother of husband of the prosecutrix) took advantage of the situation and in absence of her husband, he used to say that since her husband is physically sick, therefore, he would not be in a position to satisfy her requirements and accordingly, on 20th March, 2015 the applicant had physical relations with her. Thereafter, on various occasions, he also promised that he would marry her and they would enjoy the life and also pressurized the prosecutrix to take divorce from Gabbar Goswami and he also assured that he would construct a separate house for the prosecutrix and both would stay. Later on, the applicant sold his house in the month of September, 2020. Whenever the prosecutrix used to attend the Court proceedings in connection with her divorce case, the applicant also used to accompany her and she was continuously violated by him physically. She was always threatened by the applicant that in case if she narrates to anybody, then she would be killed, therefore, she did not inform the incident to anybody. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2020, she started living separately in a rented premises. It was further alleged that the applicant somehow managed to get the new address of the prosecutrix and started visiting her and in the month of October, 2020 he had physical relations with her forcibly. Again on 18th December, 2020, he had forcible physical relations with the prosecutrix and also assured that he would marry her and, thereafter, the applicant did not come back. It is submitted that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted, then it is clear that the prosecutrix is a major lady and was a consenting party and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any false promise of marriage was ever made by the applicant. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after inordinate delay of five years and nine months and the FIR has been lodged with a clear intention to misuse the process of law. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another,2009 9 SCC 608. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the month of August, 2020 also the applicant had given a cheque of Rs.3 lac to the prosecutrix.

(3.) Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant. It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that so far as the cheque of Rs. 3 lac which is alleged to have been given by the applicant to the prosecutrix is concerned, the same is a defence which cannot be considered at this stage. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the said cheque was actually encashed because the applicant has not filed any document to show his bank records. Further, the fact that the applicant had given a cheque of Rs.3 lac to the prosecutrix clearly indicates that he was having some relationships with the prosecutrix.