Mahesh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3742 MP

                                      1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                            ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2022

                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58209 of 2021

        Between:-
        MAHESH PATEL S/O JAGDISH PATEL , AGED
        ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYEE
        VILLAGE AHMEDPUR KHAIGAON P.S. MOGHAT
        DISTRICT KHANDWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                     .....PETITIONER
        (BY Shri Siddhanth Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner.)

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR P.S.
        MOGHAT ROAD DISTRICT KHANDWA MP P.S.
        MOGHAT ROAD DISTRICT KHANDWA MP
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      COMPLAINANT / VICTIM A D/O NOT KNOWN NOT
        MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY Ms. Priyanka Jain, P.L. for the State.)

      This M.Cr.C. coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                        ORDER

This is a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR dated 06.08.2021 bearing Crime No.325/2021 for the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC registered at Police Station Moghat Road, District Khandwa.

Facts of the case in short are that on 06.08.2021, the prosecutrix lodged a report against the petitioner stating that she got married to one Prabhu in the year 2008 and out of their wedlock, they had two children. Thereafter, a divorce took place between them in the year 2014 in presence of villagers as witnesses. After sometime, the prosecutrix met the petitioner and fell in love with him. The petitioner proposed the prosecutrix to marry her, then she told the truth about her previously marriage and two children, who resided with her. The petitioner accepted her children and they decided to get married. The petitioner made physical relations with the prosecutrix for so many times before marriage. On

20.06.2021, the petitioner married the prosecutrix. After marriage, they lived together for 3-4 days. Thereafter, the petitioner left the house stating that he would come back after informing his parents about their marriage. When the petitioner did not come back, the prosecutrix contacted the petitioner, he told that he would not

come back in future as his parents are against their marriage. After sometime, the applicant's brother Ganesh harassed the prosecutrix and threatened to leave the petitioner. The police registered the case against the applicant for offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the divorce took place between the prosecutrix and her first husband was not legally separated. The prosecutrix did not disclose the fact that she was not legally divorced. She was a matured lady and therefore, she was a consenting party. The prosecutrix and her sister-in-law pressurized the petitioner to marry her otherwise they would falsely implicate him in the case of rape, therefore, the petitioner succumbed to the pressure of the prosecutrix and he got married her. When the petitioner came to know of the martial status of the prosecutrix, he left her. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare their marriage null and void as the prosecutrix was not legally separated with her first husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the application moved by the petitioner. The FIR was lodged with malafide intention. Hence, it is prayed that the FIR lodged against the petitioner be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgments passed in cases of Mustafa Sadruddin Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. SLP (Cri.) No.3819/2020, Ritesh Chopra and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 2019 SCC Online MP 619, Prem Narayan & Ors. Vs. Sushila Devi, 2016 SCC Online MP 8791, D.P. Gulati, Manger Accounts, Jetking Infotrain Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 730, Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Rakesh Singh and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, 2013 SCC Online MP 3187 and Harinarayan Vs. Smt. Shweta Parmar, 2013 SCC Online MP 5912.

On the other hand, learned Panel lawyer for the State submits that FIR

lodged against the petitioner may not be quashed merely saying that it has been lodged with ulterior motive and malafide intentions. It is a matter of evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.

Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that this petition is misconceived. In this case, there is a factual dispute which has to be decided by the trial Court after trial of both the cases. The aforesaid controversy cannot be adjudicated by this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Considering the specific and clear allegations

made in the FIR for commission of offence under section 376 of the IPC, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR and it cannot be said that the same has been lodged with ulterior motive. There is no reason to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner is mostly of offence under sections 498-A of the IPC and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same are different from the present case. The allegations mentioned in the FIR as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. are very serious.

Consequently, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed at motion stage. However, the trial Court shall certainty consider and deal with the contentions and the defence of the petitioner in accordance with law.

I t is also made clear that the trial Court shall not influence any of the observations made by this Court in this order at the time of final disposal of the case.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

pn

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE Date: 2022.03.23 11:10:42 IST