CHAINA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the registration and investigation in the matter of FIR No. 383/2016 registered at Ratanada Police Station, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 315 and 120B I.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that respondent No.2 submitted a complaint before the SHO, Police Station, Ratanada, Jodhpur against the petitioner with the allegation that the marriage of the complainant had been solemnized with one Shiva Ram. While she was having a dispute with her husband, the present petitioner assured her of all possible help and also intended to solemnize marriage with the complainant, as disclosed to the family members. The petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant lived together, and during such period, it is alleged that twice abortion was carried upon the respondent No. 2. However, they continued to stay together, firstly, in a hotel, and thereby, in a rented premises. The petitioner thereafter, went back from his promise to marry the complainant and left the complainant, and thus, allegedly, he committed sexual intercourse by inducing the complainant to solemnize marriage with her. Respondent No. 2 admittedly, was married to Shiva Ram, but when she fell out of the marriage, she consensually stayed with the present petitioner.

(3.) The facts of this case are akin to the precedent law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Anup K. Paul v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2016 Cri.LJ 509 , relevant paras of which read as under:- "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Courts. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) has later on followed in various decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591 ; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi,(1999) 3 SCC 259 ; Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd(2000) 3 SCC 269 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque( 2005) 1 SCC 122. The principles relevant are as under: