GANGARAM Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Gangaram has approached this Court seeking quashment of the F.I.R. No. 67/2017 registered at the P.S. Matoda, District Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 457 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 66(E) of I.T. Act.

(2.) The respondent complainant Smt. 'G' lodged an F.I.R. against the present petitioner on 20.06.2017 with the allegation that about two months earlier, the petitioner called on the mobile phone of her husband Shri Kailash who was sleeping at that point of time. The complainant took the call and the petitioner allegedly talked her in a lewd manner and recorded the conversation in his mobile phone. Thereafter, the accused allegedly persuaded the complainant to develop a friendship with him under the threat of making their talks viral on internet. The accused also provided a mobile phone to the complainant and forced her to talk to him. The complainant was left with no choice but to develop a friendship with the accused. She was also coerced into establishing sexual relations with the accused on numerous occasions. She was continuously pressurized and forced to continue the sexual relationship under the threat of making their lewd conversations viral. Finally, the accused made the recordings viral on the internet. On the basis of this report, the impugned F.I.R. No. 67/2017 came to be registered at the Police Station Matoda for the offences mentioned above. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she slightly altered the story and alleged that when the accused put the first call, he did not disclose his name. Nevertheless, she talked to him and went to the water tank where, the accused was waiting for her. He disclosed that he had recorded their conversation in his mobile. He gave her a mobile and a SIM and two sachets of ash (Bhabhuti) . She was told to consume one herself and to administer the other to her husband. After consuming the Bhabhuti, the complainant came under a spell of the accused, started following his every command. The accused used to subject the prosecutrix to sexual relations every other day. He also took her obscene pictures in his mobile and uploaded the same on to the internet. The prosecutrix thereafter returned the mobile phone to the accused and lodged the report. The Investigating Officer proceeded to conduct thorough investigation and the audio C.D. of the conversation held between the accused and the prosecutrix was recovered. The Investigating Officer finally concluded that the prosecutrix was forced into an intimate relationship by him with the accused because of the threat of exposing the indecent conversation recording saved by him and thereby, the victim was sexually exploited. The petitioner was arrested. The Investigating Officer got prepared the transcription of the conversation held inter-se between the prosecutrix and the petitioner which forms a part of the investigation file. On a bare perusal of the said transcription, it is apparent that the prosecutrix herself uttered extremely lewd and obscene words to the accused. She gladly agreed to the suggestion given by the accused that they would have extra marital sexual flings in the fields in the night time. She demanded gifts in cash and kind from the accused in return for the sexual favours. The call details collected by the Investigating Officer clearly indicate that the talks held inter-se between the prosecutrix and the accused were frequent and continued for prolonged durations. No incriminating videos of the sexually were recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation. In view of the tenor of the conversation held inter se between the prosecutrix and the accused, it is apparent that the case set up by her in the F.I.R. and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused blackmailed her into having sexual relations by giving her a threat that he would make the talks viral on internet is nothing but an absolute piece of fiction. As a matter of fact, the prosecutrix was proactively participating and was indulging in the extra marital sexual affairs with the petitioner without any element of inducement or coercion. The prosecutrix is a 40 years old major married woman and as such, the sexual relations which established by her with the accused were purely consensual and as a matter of fact, she indulged in an extramarital sexual fling with the accused of her own volition.

(3.) In view of these facts, I am of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of these patently cooked up allegations is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law.