BRIJESH AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the relief of quashment of criminal proceedings registered against him for the offence of Ss. 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC in Crime No.225/2023 of Police Station, Pipariya, district Narmadapuram.

(2.) The summary of the facts of the case is that on the basis of an FIR lodged by prosecutrix in Police Station, Pipariya, district Narmadapuram, FIR at Crime No.225/2023 was registered against the petitioner for the offences of Ss. 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioner was in good relationship with the prosecutrix even after her marriage. The prosecutrix was married about 18-19 years ago and her eldest child is aged about 18 years. Being tired of the relationship with her husband, the prosecutrix started living with the petitioner as his wife but petitioner was not willing to marry her despite her insistence. On 28/5/2023, at around 10:00 a.m. petitioner gave his consent for marriage and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him on the motorcycle; he then took her to his house and committed rape with her; on the basis of this FIR, the investigation followed and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Sessions, Narmadapuram. The petitioner was allowed bail in the matter by the High Court and is now facing the trial.

(3.) The grounds raised in this writ petition are that no offence is made out against the petitioner as the prosecutrix was a married lady and had not divorced her husband, therefore any promise of marriage allegedly made by the petitioner was legally impossible to carry out; the sexual intercourse between the parties was consensual and with mutual agreement; for the offence of criminal intimidation under Sec. 506 IPC it must be proven that the victim was threatened intentionally to cause injury to her reputation or property or person but facts of the present case fell short of constituting the act of intimidation; both petitioner and victim were adult persons of whom age of victim is about 48 years while the petitioner is merely 26 years old; these facts cast doubt on the vulnerability or susceptibility of prosecutrix to the act of coercion. The case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has been relied upon. It is claimed that in the absence of any adequate evidence about the offence of forceful sexual intercourse or misrepresentation played upon the prosecutrix, this petition should be allowed and the charge-sheet should be quashed.