UMESH LILANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant/Accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brevity 'Cr.P.C'), for quashment of FIR dated 30/08/2017 registered as Crime No.604/2017 at Police Station Lasudiya, District Indore for offence under Section 376(2) (n) and 506-II of IPC, 1860 and the consequential proceedings of S.T. No.406/2018 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that prosecutrix lodged FIR at Police Station Lasudiya, District Indore on 30/08/2017 to the effect that she is a divorcee and she was an employee in the applicant's company as by holding marketing job in the year 2009, therefore, she came in contact with the applicant. Gradually the acquaintance turned into love. The applicant proposed to marry her and established physical relationship with her regularly. On 29/08/2017, when the prosecutrix asked the applicant about their marriage, then he told her that she is only an employee of his company and asked her to remain like that. He also threatened her that if she reported the matter to anyone, then he would kill her. Thereafter, prosecutrix narrated the incident to her sister and lodged a report. Police after registering the FIR recorded the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses. Prosecutrix was sent to hospital for medical examination and after completing the formalities submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if the entire allegations made by the prosecutrix are accepted as true, then it would be clear that she was a consenting party and therefore, no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out. The prosecutrix is a 35 years old divorcee and she is well versed in the ways of life, yet she claimed that she succumbed to the promise of marriage made by the applicant and continued to submit sexual intercourse for a considerable period. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse was based on misconception of facts. It is not a case of the prosecutrix that the applicant had physical relations for once or twice, but according to her she had physical relations with the applicant for a period of about seven years and respondent no.2 knew this fact that the applicant is already married, therefore, her marriage is not possible with him. Even then, if she had consensual sex with the applicant, then it is not a case where consent of the prosecutrix was obtained either by misrepresentation or misconception of fact. This is a clear case of relationship between two consenting adults for mutual sexual gratification, therefore, it is prayed that this Court exercising the powers under Section 482 of 'Cr.P.C' can quash the FIR as well as the consequential proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.