Ramesh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5504 MP

                                                          1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                                      MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17240 of 2022

                              Between:-
                              RAMESH PATEL S/O SHRI DAYARAM PATEL ,
                              AGED    ABOUT   42   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                              BUSINESSMAN R/O VILLAGE MADHPURA POST
                              JAITPUR DISTRICT PANNA M.P. (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI KASHI RAM PATEL, COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)

                              AND

                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                              POLICE STATION MAHILA POLICE STATION
                              DISTRICT PANNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                            This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                           ORDER

This is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

Case Crime No. 11/2022 is registered at Mahila Police Station, District Panna for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 509 and 328 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated vide Annexure A-2. The applicant and the prosecutrix had entered into an agreement titled Ikrarnama/Vivah Samjhota duly notarized by one Jagdish Prasad Chourasiya Advocate on 23/09/2017 whereby complainant/prosecutrix has accepted present applicant to be his husband.

It is submitted that even prosecutrix had given birth to a child. She had shown name of the present applicant as her father. The prosecutrix is an 'Assistant Signature SAN Not Teacher' and in her family details, she has given information of the present Verified

Digitally signed by applicant to be her husband.

VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.04.20 10:52:41 IST

Placing reliance on these documents, it is submitted that present applicant has committed marital rape and is yet not an offence in the scheme of law and, therefore, the applicant be given benefit of anticipatory bail.

Reliance is placed on order of the Supreme Court in the case of Jatin

Agarwal Vs. State of Telangana and another Cr.A. No. 456/2022 decided on March 21, 2022. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No. 5795/2021 decided on 28th February, 2022 Mansingh @ Brahmanpreet Singh Guron Vs. State of M.P. and another.

Reliance is also placed on a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4952/2020 and other connected matters decided on 23/02/2022 to submit that applicant is innocent and, therefore, he be given benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned Government Advocate in his turn submits that there is no provision in law to give legal sanctity to a Notarized marriage in the form of an agreement. In Hindu law, there is no concept of an agreement to solemnize a marriage. Reading statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as recorded before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted that prosecutrix is being blackmailed by the applicant and is under duress being tired of blackmailing, present report is lodged as a forged agreement for marriage, was prepared under coercion and duress.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the prosecutrix has categorically deposed before the learned Magistrate that she was coerced. Her photography was carried out and at present, the applicant was constantly blackmailing her to enter into a relationship. She gave birth to a daughter and since then, there have been rise in illegal demands and the applicant suppressed the fact of earlier marriage.

As far as order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jatin Agarwal (supra) is concerned, it is a consent order where complainant/respondent no. 2 admitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that she performed marriage with the applicant and was living happily, therefore, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to do complete justice in the matter, F.I.R. registering offences under Sections 417, 428 and 376 of IPC was quashed.

As far as order of coordinate Bench in the case of Mansingh @ Brahmanpreet Singh Guron (supra) is concerned, in that case, the facts are different. In that case, applicant Mansingh @ Brahmanpreet Singh Guron (supra) was married and divorced. There was a conscious decision of the prosecutrix to marry the appellant. The appellant had informed her that since, she belongs to scheduled caste community, he will have to prepare his parents for marriage.

In her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix admitted that both the prosecutrix and the appellant were divorced on 23/06/2020. They

have performed marriage and started living as husband and wife. Since, the prosecutrix belonging to scheduled caste category, parents of the appellant had prevented them from coming to the house. Later on, that too was regularized but when lockdown was over, then prosecutrix asked the appellant to legally marry her as per Hindu customs but he refused to marry her.

In view of such circumstances, taking into consideration the law laid down in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108 and also the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2019 SC 327 a n d Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2019) 9 SCC 608, the said order was passed quashing the F.I.R. Even, in case of the judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court, it was a matter of quashing of the F.I.R. and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan quashed the F.I.R. taking into consideration the facts of that case but in the present case, facts are different.

It is an admitted position that present applicant Ramesh Patel is already married. He has three children from first marriage. He allegedly suppressed this fact and entered into the marriage alliance, though, Shri Patel, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this fact of marriage was known to the prosecutrix but fact of the matter is that there cannot be any second marriage without dissolution of first marriage as per the provisions contained in law.

Secondly, there is no provision for conducting a marriage on the basis of an agreement which is notarized by the Notary, Public. The role and proficiency of

the said notary is also suspect inasmuch as, the law does not permit him to carry out such marriages and he is not authorized to notarized such illegal agreements. The allegations put forth by the prosecutrix are yet to be investigated. The applicant is required to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Officer so to bring out truth. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the allegations are so wild and baseless so to prompt this court to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction and grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

In view of such facts, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant inasmuch as the law laid down in the case of Jatin Agarwal (supra) and Mansingh @ Brahmanpreet Singh (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy