PIYUSH Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by Fourth ASJ, Ratlam in S.T. No.161/2015, whereby framed the charges against the applicant for offences under Section 376 and 506 of IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2015 prosecutrix has lodged a report stating that before two years an engagement ceremony of applicant and prosecutrix was performed by their parents and before eight months marriage was also solemnized between them in a Temple. After performing such marriage, applicant used to have physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext that he would perform marriage with the prosecutrix as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Before 12 days the parents of the prosecutrix asked the applicant to perform marriage with the prosecutrix as per Hindu rites and rituals, then the applicant denied the same and also threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences. On this basis, FIR at Crime No.119/2015 for an offences under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC has been registered at Police Station Sailana, District Ratlam. After completion of the investigation, final report has been filed against the applicant for the aforesaid offences. Learned ASJ after considering the material on record framed the charges against the applicant for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution case the applicant's marriage was solemnized with the prosecutrix in the Temple, then the applicant/husband cannot be charged for rape on his own major wife under Section 376 of IPC. If the allegations of the prosecution are taken on their face value, it reveals that the prosecutrix who is a major girl took a conscious decision after application of mind to have physical relationship with the applicant. There is no evidence to presume that the consent was given on misconception. Hence, the order of framing the charge under Sections 376 of IPC is erroneous. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant cited judgments of this Court in the case of Sunder Singh v/s State of M. P., 2014 ILR(MP) 236; Abdul Salam v/s State of M. P., 2006 CrLJ 4734 and the judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Kaini Rajan v/s State of Kerala, 2013 9 SCC 113; Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v/s State of Bihar, 2005 AIR(SC) 203; Uday v/s State of Karnataka, 2003 AIR(SC) 1639; Vinod Kumar v/s State of Kerala, 2014 5 SCC 678 and Deepak Gulati v/s State of Haryana, 2013 AIR(SC) 2071, so far as the charge under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, there is vague allegation that the applicant has threatened to kill the prosecutrix, therefore, no ground for framing charge under Section 506 of IPC. The order of framing charge is bad-in-law. Therefore, it be set-aside and the applicant be discharged.