Gopaldas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8358 MP

                                        1                M.Cr.C. No.58586/2021

           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            M.Cr.C. No.58586/2021
                     (Gopaldas Vs. State of M.P. and another)
Indore, Dated: 07/12/2021
     Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State

of Madhya Pradesh.

      Shri Vikas Soni, learned counsel for the complainant / objector/ vic-

tim / prosecutrix.

      Petitioner and the prosecutrix, both, are present in person.

      With the consent of the parties, heard finally on the question of ad-

mission.

                                   ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(herein after referred to as "the Code") has been filed by the petitioner for

quashment of First Information Report (FIR) registered at PS Badnawar

District Dhar and the subsequent registration of special case No.69/2016

registered against him vide Crime No.641/2016 for commission of offence

under Sections 363(kha), 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and

also under Section 5(Tha) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offence Act, 2012, as also the subsequent charge sheet.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is of entering into a sexual

relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage but

subsequently, he refused to marry with her and thus, the present FIR has

been lodged against him.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the

prosecutrix had an affair and they also solemnized marriage subsequently

and she is residing with him since last four years and out of this wedlock,

they also have two boys aged 3 years and 1 month. Proof of their marriage

has also been placed on record. It is submitted that the FIR has bee lodged

only account of certain misunderstanding between them and now they have

reconciled their differences. Hence, this petition has been filed.

4. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the decision

rendered by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2021

passed in the case of Ananda D.V. v. State & another on 12.04.2021

wherein, in similar circumstances, the order of the High Court rejecting the

petition for quashment of the FIR was set aside, and the FIR was quashed;

and which judgment has also been relied upon by this Court in

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.43974/2021 (Shubham @ Lala s/o Shri

Gopichand Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another) order

dated 29.09.2021. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR in the present case be

also quashed as also the further proceedings pending before the trial Court

in Sessions Trial No.21/2021.

5. On a query raised by this Court from the prosecutrix (who is present

in person), she has stated that she has already solemnized marriage with the

petitioner and does not wish to prosecute the matter any further, as all the

misunderstanding between them have already been resolved.

6. Shri Soni, Counsel for the objector / prosecutrix has also submitted

that the petition be allowed and the relief sought be granted.

7. Counsel for the respondent / State has submitted that appropriate

orders be passed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also

the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V. v.

State & another (supra).

9. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V.

v. State & another (supra) reads, as under: -

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition Criminal Nos. 2382 of 2019 and 287 of 2020 respectively, whereby the High Court rejected the criminal writ petitions for quashing of FIR No. 455 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 in respect of offence registered at P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by the private respondent was that the appellant had promised her that he will marry her, which promise was not kept by the appellant. The FIR was registered on 17.09.2013.

It is not in dispute that after the registration of FIR, the parties were able to resolve their differences and eventually got married on 11.10.2014. The appellant as well as private respondent represented by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel jointly state that they are enjoying happy married life.

A joint request is, therefore, made on behalf of the appellant and the private respondent that the FIR registered on 17.09.2013 be quashed as it was the outcome of some misunderstanding between the parties. Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since 11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive. Rather registering such FIR was an ill-advised move on the part of the private respondent, is the stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private respondent are literate and well-informed persons and have jointly opted for quashing of the stated FIR.

Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in the interest of justice, we accede to the joint request of quashing of FIR in the peculiar facts of the present case.

Hence, these appeals must succeed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. Instead, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on the basis of impugned FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

(emphasis supplied)

10. Testing the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the anvil

of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, this Court finds

that the petitioner has also made out a case for quashment of the FIR, as

both the parties have decided to bury their hatchets and prosecutrix has also

filed an affidavit that she had lodged the FIR under certain

misunderstanding and under the pressure from her parents. Thus, in such

circumstances, when the petitioner and the prosecutrix have also got

married this Court finds it expedient to allow the present petition.

11. Resultantly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.58586/2021 stands

allowed; and FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.641/2016

at Police Station Badnawar, District Dhar (MP) for commission of offence

under 363(kha), 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and also

under Section 5(Tha) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offence Act, 2012, as also the subsequent charge sheet are hereby quashed

and the action taken against the petitioner pursuant to the lodging of FIR be

treated as effaced from record in law.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge krjoshi

Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2021.12.07 18:16:57 +05'30'