Delhi High Court
Rahul Mishra vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 12 February, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.02.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4363/2017
RAHUL MISHRA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Parashar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State.
Mr. Ajit Amar, Advocate for the
respondent No.2 with respondent
No.2 in person.
SI Nirmala Singh, PS Govind Puri.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
12.02.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 4363/2017 & Crl.M.A.17509/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.245/2017 under
Section 376 IPC, Police Station Govind Puri.
2. It is alleged in the FIR that the physical relationship was made
by the petitioner with respondent No.2 on the false pretext of
marriage. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was because of a
misunderstanding. It is contended that the respondent No.2 was
already married and her marriage was subsisting when the alleged
physical relationship was stated to have been made. It is contended
that the respondent No.2 is even now residing with her earlier husband
and family.
3. Reliance is placed on an affidavit of the respondent No.2, which
is filed before the District Judge, wherein, it is confirmed that she was
married in the year 2000 and her marriage is subsisting.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Nagar vs. State
& Anr.: 2016 (2) JCC 200, wherein, the Coordinate Bench has held
that where the complainant was already having a subsisting marriage,
an offence under section 376 IPC would not be made out solely on the
ground of having relationship on the false pretext of marriage and the
proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. The respondent No.2 is present in person, represented by a
counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms
her affidavit dated 14.07.2017, which was filed before the Trial Court,
wherein, it is stated that she is married to Kunwarpal Singh with
whom she got married in the year 2000 and her marriage is still
subsisting. It is stated in the affidavit that she was aware that even the
petitioner was married, and the subject FIR was registered because of
a misunderstanding.
6. In the present case, admittedly, at the time when the alleged
physical relationship is stated to have been made, both the petitioner
and the respondent No.2 were married and knew about the respective
marriages of each other.
7. The judgment in the case of Mohit Nagar (supra) squarely
applies to the facts of the present case. Since the respective marriages
of the complainant and the accused were subsisting and within the
knowledge of both, there could be no question of making physical
relationship on the false promise of marriage. Admittedly the
relationship was consensual. The complainant who was married at the
relevant point of time cannot be permitted to contend that her consent
was not free, and it was obtained on a false promise of marriage. She
out of her own free consent entered into a relationship with the
petitioner. Clearly the offence under section 376 IPC is not made out.
8. In the view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent
proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, FIR No.245/2017 under Section 376 IPC, Police
Station Govind Puri and the consequent proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2018
st
