Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1 M.Cr.C. No.60874/2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.60874/2021
(Vikram Singh Vs. State of M.P. and another)
Indore, Dated:24/01/2022
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the State.
Ms. Pooja Bhogle, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.86/2021 at Police Station
Chhoti Gwaltoli, District Indore under Sections 376, 506, 376(2) (k) of the
IPC as also for quashing the further proceedings pending in sessions trial
No.793/2021 before the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.
In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
prosecutrix/respondent No.2 herein lodged an FIR on 04/07/2021 alleging
rape on the pretext of marriage by the present petitioner/applicant. In the
aforesaid case, charge sheet has already been filed and the case has been
committed to the Court of sessions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequently
the petitioner and the prosecutrix have come to terms and have decided to
settle their disputes out of the Court only and as such they have already
struck a compromise, a copy of which has also been placed on record. It is
further submitted that the trial is at the initial stage and even the charges
have not yet been framed and hence, the FIR and subsequent proceedings
be quashed at this stage only as the petitioner is only 25 years old young
man and has a bright future ahead and also that no purpose would be served
to keep the trial pending when its final outcome not likely to bring about
any conviction as the prosecutrix herself has no objection if the case against
the petitioner is closed at this stage only.
Learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix Ms. Pooja Bhogle has
also submitted that she has no objection if the petition is allowed. The
prosecutrix who is also present through video conferencing and is identified
by her counsel Ms. Pooja Bhogle, has also submitted that she also has no
objection if the present petition is allowed and the proceedings pending
against the petitioner are quashed.
In support of his contention, Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for
the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in the
case of Shubham @ Lala Vs. State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C.
No.43974/2021 on 29/09/2021 wherein this Court while relying upon a
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
registered has also been quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer.
Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case
diary as also the documents filed by the petitioner on record and taking note
of the consent as given by the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no purpose would be served to keep the mater pending, the
result of which is a forgone conclusion.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Ananda D.V. v. State & another
(supra) had had the occasion to deal with a similar case and while quashing
the proceedings, it is observed 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)
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the
petition stands allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No.86/2021 at
Police Station Chhoti Gwaltoli, District Indore under Sections 376, 506,
376(2) (k) of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the
same, are hereby quashed and the action taken against the petitioner
pursuant thereto be treated as effaced from record in law.
C.c. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
krjoshi
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2022.01.29 16:14:12 +05'30'
