KAVITA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned P. P. for the state and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has argued that the first marriage of the petitioner resulted in divorce and the second marriage was solemnized with Ramesh alias Pappu and her husband by second marriage is in judicial custody on account of assault made to the family members of the petitioner. It has been also argued that the divorce petition of the petitioner with the second husband is still pending in the Family Court, Ajmer. Then, on filing this FIR against her, she has filed a complaint against the complainant of this case before the Judicial Magistrate, for the offence under Sections 376, 420, 511, 120-B IPC. In the complaint it was alleged that she was proposed to be given a job for rs. 5,000 p. m. plus free lodging-boarding in kota and she was first kept in Kota and thereafter she was proposed for marriage, therefore, she was taken to Hanuman temple and it was assured that if she gets her divorce orders from the Court she would formally marry and by then it was agreed that they would live as husband and wife. It was further alleged that she was put to physical harassment and sexual relations which amounted to rape under Section 376 ipc by the complainant R. L. Singhal. It has been argued that the statement of the present petitioner was recorded under section 202 Cr. PC and the complaint was sent to the Police Station, which is pending with the Police for investigation. Learned counsel submits that in view of what has been transpired between the parties, no offence under Section 420 or 406 IPC is made out and she should be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has been cheated with the ornaments costing rs. 85,000, as narrated in para No. 6 of the FIR reproduced in this petition. It has also been argued that three cheques of Rs. 5,000 each were also issued in favour of the accused petitioner for the need of her uncle shown by her. It has been strenuously argued that the complainant, who is business man, aged 61 years, wanted to have a partner as advertised by him in the news paper that he has been cheated as explained in the complaint. It is also argued that the petitioner had served a notice in the month of September, 2006 demanding the complainant to marry with her and give her the status of wife otherwise he could be proceeded with for the sexual relations he had with her as well as for cheating her. Reply to the notice was filed on behalf of the complainant through advocate Mr. M. C. Gupta on dated 12. 9. 2006. From the submissions of both the sides, it has been revealed that the petitioner and the complainant expressed faith on each other and thereby entered into a ritual by which the petitioner was treated equivalent to the wife of the complainant as the marriage was to be solemnized after the divorce certificate of the petitioner was to be obtained. With this back ground it has been submitted that the petitioner and the complainant remained together and enjoyed relations at par with marital life and as such there has been neither inducement by the petitioner nor any entrustment. It has been also argued that the petitioner has also filed a complaint in the Court against the complainant which has been sent for investigation after her statement under Section 200 Cr. PC wherein it has been alleged that she was put to sexual exploitation and the complainant has committed offence under Section 376 IPC on the pretext of marriage in pursuance of matrimonial advertisement as he was widower.