MAYANK TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet as well as consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.308 of 2021 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandhir, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n) of IPC pending before the Court of Eight Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.570/2021.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 10/8/2021 complainant- prosecutrix aged 23 years lodged a written complaint at Police Station Gole Ka Mandhir, District Gwalior that she is resident of Etta, Uttar Pradesh. From last two years, she is studying at Gwalior doing course of Nursing. In January, 2020, she contacted the present applicant/accused through Face Book. They developed friendship and started liking each othher. They started living relationship. She proposed the petitioner for marriage. He assured that whenever he will get job he will marriage the complainant. During their relationship, they have made physical relationship as husband and wife. On 27/7/2021, he went to Jodhpur and solemnized marriage with another girl. Therefore, the petitioner lodged complaint. On the basis of such written complaint, FIR vide Crime No.308/2021 has been registered against the petitioner. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet has been filed by police.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant with mala fide intention just to take undue benefit. The complainant- prosecutrix is a major girl and she is known the petitioner from the last near about one year and eight months. She has made physical relationship with the petitioner on her own consent and free will. The prosecutrix was in relationship with petitioner over a significant period of time, therefore, consent of the prosecutrix is not obtained by misrepresentation. Just to take undue benefit she has lodged a false FIR. It is further submitted that the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that the petitioner is known to her for the last one year and eight months and if any woman continues to remain in physical relationship for a long period including visiting hotel, then it cannot be said that her consent was obtained by misconception of fact. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 2071, Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2016 SC 406, Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. AIR 2021 SC 1405 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Senjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. and another 2020 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 260, Abid Ali Vs. State of MP and Anr. passed on 18/5/2017 in M.Cr.C. No.11363/2016 and a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Lilani Vs. The State of M.P. and Anr. passed on 18/7/2019 in M.Cr.C. No.16158/2019 (Indore Bench) as well as the order dtd. 28/3/2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satendra Rathore vs. State of MP and Another passed in MCRC 45389 of 2021.