TRILOK CHAND MAKHIJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.66/2019 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences u/s 376, 313 and 120B IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. A bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant is a major lady and having a criminal nature. She has lodged the present FIR to extort the money from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's wife Smt. Geeta Makhija has lodged a written complaint against the complainant u/s 384 and 388 IPC. After that, as a counter blast, complainant-respondent had lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a rich man and he had engaged the respondent in advertisement. For taking the money, respondent wanted to implicate the petitioner in the false case. So, she had lodged the present FIR on false and frivolous facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent had travelled with the petitioner not only in India but also outside from India in Nepal in August 2016 and Bangkok in September 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire expenses of the trip was borne by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant had made intimate relations with the petitioner with her own wish and she also very well knew that petitioner was a married person. Petitioner had not given any false assurance for marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant had taken lakhs of rupees from the petitioner by blackmailing him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR, petitioner and complainant were having in relation from 2014 and she had lodged the present FIR after a lapse of 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence regarding abortion because no evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever relation made between them are consensual. So, offence of rape is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, Investigating Officer has also collected the call details as well as bills of the hotels etc. which clearly show that respondent was consented party in the affair. So, FIR lodged against the petitioner be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Pramod Surya Bhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608; (2) Shivshankar Alias Shiva vs. State of Karnataka and anr. (2019) 18 SCC 204; (3) Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108; (4) X vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in CRLA No.613/2020 decided on 15/12/2020; (5) Baldev Gora vs. State of Raj. and anr. 2018 (3) RLW 2417 (Raj.).