UDAYPAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of CR.P.C. for quashing the FIR bearing crime No. 163/2017 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of I.P.C. and consequential proceedings relating to aforesaid FIR.

(2.) The facts of the case are that prosecutrix made a written complainant at police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore alleging that in the year 2011 she and applicant was working together in the insurance company. Thereafter, they got acquainted, developed intimacy and started roaming together here and there. At one point of time, the applicant shifted to Delhi, however, during his stay at Delhi, applicant kept in touch with the prosecutrix telephonically. Sometimes in the year 2015, applicant came back to Indore and proposed to marry the prosecutrix. Initially, she declined but on the persuasion of the applicant, she ultimately agreed. Thereafter on 02.08.2017, the applicant had physical relationship with the prosecutrix in a hotel at Indore and thereafter, when he came to Indore, then he made physical relationship with the prosecutrix regularly. However, in the year 2017 he declined to marry with her. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, F.I.R. bearing Crime No.163/2017 was registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prosecutrix herself stated in the complaint that she was acquainted with the applicant from the year 2011 and they were friends and had also grown intimate. Nowhere it is claimed by the complainant that the applicant imposed him upon her nor persuaded her to be romantically involved on the pretext of marriage since the beginning. The complainant details an account of incident to be 02.08.2017 and the date of complaint viz-a-viz F.I.R. is 29.11.2017. The complainant nowhere disclosed any cogent reason regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prosecutrix is major lady, she throughout knew very well about the consequences of her conduct and that she willingly agreed for all sorts of relationship and that at no point of time, the applicant made any promise to marry and that in this regard, the complainant made against the applicant is false and baseless. The prosecutrix is consenting party to the acts committed between herself and the accused., therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of I.P.C. and prays that FIR bearing Crime No.163 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of I.P.C. and all consequential proceedings relating to the aforesaid FIR may be quashed.