RAJU PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.173/2020 registered at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for offence under Ss. 376, 366, 342, 506 of IPC as well as for quashment of criminal trial.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that on the report of the prosecutrix, which was lodged on 2/4/2020 at 15:39, the police has registered Crime No.173/2020 on the allegation that on 21/3/2020 the prosecutrix was all alone in her house. At about 2 PM the applicant entered inside the house and committed rape on her and also extended a threat that in case if she narrates the incident to anybody, then he would kill the complainant and her brother. As she got afraid, therefore, she did not narrate the incident to anybody. On 29/3/2020 the applicant insisted that the prosecutrix must come to Mangla Devi Temple as he wanted to marry her and again a threat was extended that in case if she does not come, then he would kill her and her brother and accordingly, on 30/3/2020 the prosecutrix left her house for Mangla Devi Temple at 4 PM without informing anybody. The applicant came there and took the prosecutrix to Bhitarvar and locked her in a rented room. On 1/4/2020 her neighbour Mohan Parihar came there and rescued her. Thereafter, she came to police outpost Sunari and an information was given to her father and then, she went back to her house and informed the entire incident. It is submitted that since the FIR was lodged on 2/4/2020 and the rape was committed for the first time on 21/3/2020, therefore, it is clear that there is a considerable delay in lodging of the FIR. Further, it appears that the prosecutrix herself was a consenting party and, therefore, no offence under Sec. 376 of IPC is made out.

(3.) Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that so far as the question of consent is concerned, it is a question of fact which is to be decided by the Trial Court. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that she went to Mangla Devi Temple as she was afraid of the threat given by the applicant. Whether the explanation given by the prosecutrix is plausible or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is submitted that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings because if the prosecution succeeds in giving plausible explanation for delay in lodging the FIR, then it would not be fatal to the prosecution case.