Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prakash Gahoi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MCRC No. 1158 of 2021
(RAM PRAKASH GAHOI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated:05.04.2022
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Koshlendra Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Despite service none appeared for respondent No.3.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. dated 09.09.2020 by which Crime
No.0278/2020 was registered under Sections 354, 506 and 323 of IPC
against the petitioner.
(1) In brief facts of the case for the disposal of this petition are that
prosecutrix is a tenant of petitioner at House No. HIG BH 73,
Deendayal Nagar. Owner of the house is his son Shubhanshu Gahoi.
Prosecutrix along with her husband Sourabh Shriwas is a tenant in the
house No. HIG BH 73, Deendayal Nagar. From last five months, they
have not paid the rent which is Rs.50,000/-. When accused as well as
son Shubhanshu demanded rent from the tenant they said that due to
Corona, they are having no income.
(2) On 09.09.2020 prosecutrix W/o Sourabh Shriwas lodged a
typed complaint against the present petitioner at mahila Thana, Padav
that she along with her family members are residing as a tenant in the
house of petitioner from 01.03.2020 on the rent of Rs.5,000/- rupees
per month. Petitioner also used to reside near the house. On
19.08.2020 at 8.30 A.M., petitioner came and demanded arrears of
rent and electricity bill for last eight months from the husband of the
prosecutrix. Her husband told him that due to corona, they are not
having any income. They will pay the rent and electricity bill
afterwards. Petitioner in anger came upstairs and the prosecutrix was
preparing tea and demanded arrears of rent from her. She told him
that due to lock down, they are not having income, due to which they
could not pay the rent and seeks time. He become annoyed and told
her that to vacate the house and started damaging the electricity
Board. When she objected not to damage the electricity Board, he
touched his hand on her breast with bad intention and caught hold of
her and pushed her. Due to which, she got injury. She filed a written
complaint 20 days of the incident on 09.09.2020. On her written
complaint, Crime under Sections 354, 506 and 323 of IPC bearing
Crime No.02720/2020 at Mahila Thana, Padav was registered.
(3) From the side of petitioner, complaint lodged on the same day
19.08.2020 at Police Station Maharajpura was submitted by the son
of petitioner Shuhandu, who gave a complaint that husband of the
prosecutrix Sourabh Shriwas was not paid the rent for the last five
months which is Rs.50,000/-. When he went to collect the rent she
threatened to commit suicide and started throwing articles and denied
that she will not vacate the house and threatened them that if they will
demand rent, she will falsely implicate them in a false case.
(4) On going through the facts of F.I.R., it is not disputed that
prosecutrix along with her family is residing in a rented house of the
petitioner for which from last 5-6 months, they have not paid the rent.
When on 19.08.2020, petitioner and his son Shubhanshu came to
collect the rent in the house of prosecutrix, her husband and she
herself requested them that due to covid, they are having no earning
and they will pay rent and electricity in future. After 21 days,
prosecutrix by alleging the petitioner that he sexually assaulted her.
Beside this, petitioner's son gave an information at Police Station
Maharajpura on the same day i.e. 19.08.2020 about the incident.
(5) The written complaint filed by the prosecutrix after 21 days of
his filing complaint, as a counter blast only to escape from paying
rent. If such type of incident was actually happened, she ought to
have filed a complaint on the same day. Thus, it is apparent that
prosecutrix has filed a written complaint belatedly after 21 days on
the false pretext.
(6) In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Sunder Babu and
Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009) 14 SCC 244,
in which it is held that,
"even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the
case falls within Category (7) highlighted in Bhajan Lal
case, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, viz "where, a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge".
(6) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the F.I.R. dated 09.09.2020
registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Crime
No.0278/2020 for the offence under Sections 354, 506 and 323 of IPC
along with the charge-sheet which has been submitted in the
competent Court and other consequential proceedings are hereby
quashed.
This petition stands disposed of.
(Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
mani Judge
SUBASRI MANI
2022.04.06
12:26:04
-07'00'
