SHARIEF AHMED Vs. SHABNAM BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case is unusual because of the fact that a wife has leveled charge of rape against her husband. The facts of this case are that the respondent -wife left the company of the petitioner -husband somewhere in July 2005 and started living with her parents at Basholi. Because of matrimonial discord, the respondent filed a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua on 27th August 2005 leveling allegations of cruelty and commission of rape. On the complaint being presented before the Magistrate, he referred the complaint for enquiry in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. to SSP Kathua with a direction to enquire into the matter. On the enquiry having been conducted by the Police, the report alongwith statements of witnesses was sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, which revealed that the case under Section 376 RPC was made out against the petitioner. The case was referred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua. The learned Sessions Judge after perusing the record and hearing the parties framed the charges under Sections 498 -A/376 RPC.

(2.) PERUSAL of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioner had executed a talaqnama on 23rd September 2004 whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved. That the respondent did not have the knowledge about talaqnama till she was delivered copy of Talaqnama by some relative on 14.8.2005. It is alleged by the respondent that even though petitioner was aware of the fact that he had divorced his wife, he continued to live with her and had sexual intercourse during this period. The charges further reveal that the petitioner was aware of the fact that he had divorced his wife but despite that he had sexual intercourse with her till she came to know about the same on 14.8.2005.

(3.) THE Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner stating therein that he had sexual intercourse with his wife when he knew that he had divorced her on 24.09.2004. The admitted fact is that after the respondent came to know about the divorce, the petitioner did not have any sexual intercourse with her. Being aggrieved of this order, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge.