Gokul Singh vs State Of M.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 15497 MP

                                                            1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                            BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                 ON THE 24th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35259 of 2021

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   GOKUL SINGH S/O BHAGWANSINGH, AGED
                                   ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NAUKARI
                                   VILLAGE        DIGGONE,       TEHSIL
                                   NALKHEDA/POLICE LINE UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                   (BY SHRI UMESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE )

                                   AND
                           1.      STATE OF M.P STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                                   THROUGH P.S. CHIMANGANJ MANDI (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                           2.      VICTIM X THR P.S. CHIMANGANJ MANDI DIST
                                   UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (BY SHRI SANJAY KARANJAWALA, GOVT. ADVOCATE WITH MS
                                   ARCHANA MAHESHWARI, PANEL LAWYER )

                                 This application coming on for order this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of FIR bearing Crime no. 862/2020 registered at P.S. Chimanganj Mandi, Distt. Ujjain against the applicant for the offences punishable u/S 323, 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC.

Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that prosecutrix who is a Constable aged about 30 years made a complaint dated 30.06.2020 at P.S.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 11/25/2022 6:40:05 PM

Chimanganj Mandi to the effect that on 01.01.2015, at about 13:00 p.m., while she went to College Suman Manike Bhawan, Dewas Road and came out towards Dewas by-pass road, respondent who is Sub-Inspector in police aged about 54 years was standing with his Bolero vehicle and offered to take her to his wife and children. Since he is known to the prosecutrix since long, trusting him, she went with him. Applicant instead of taking her to see his wife and children, took her to a room situated in colony at Kanipura Road, Ujjain where he after closing the door started sexually assaulting her and when she objected to, he assaulted her and forcefully committed rape upon her and after 3-4 hours left her at Dewas Road Bus Stand and also threatened her not to disclose about

the incident to any one, else he will kill her as well as her family members. One day, applicant asked her to give her voter ID card and photo under the false pretext that he is presenting prosecutrix as witness in a Registry to be executed by him and thereafter he took her to Shajapur where he has taken her signature on a document. On 24.12.2019, he again took her to his quarter and forcefully committed rape upon her. On showing resistance, he assaulted her due to which she sustained injuries on her thighs and other parts of body. Due to continuous threats given by the applicant and also due to fear of social indignation, prosecutrix could not make complaint at the time of incident. After being mentally and physically harassed, she narrated the whole incident to her father who advised her to make complaint against the applicant and thereafter FIR was lodged against the applicant for the offences punishable u/S 376, 376(2)(N0, 506 and 323 of IPC. She was medically examined and her statements u/S 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. After completion of investigation, chargsheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix is a major lady Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 11/25/2022 6:40:05 PM

and she voluntarily resided with the applicant in live-in-relationship. She had executed an affidavit in this regard. FIR is delayed by 05 years which in itself shows that complaint made by the prosecutrix is false and fabricated. Hence, no offence is made out against the applicant. In support of his above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Mulidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others[AIR 2091 SC 327] and also the order passed in Cr.A. No. 442/2022 on 27.07.2022.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submits that applicant as well as respondent no.2. both are employed in police department. Prosecutrix and applicant have family terms with each other. Prosecutrix was sub-ordinate to the applicant and taking advantage of that applicant took her to his quarter and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he got executed an affidavit and on that basis, he repeatedly committed rape upon her. This is not a case of live-in-relationship.Offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature. Hence, no case for quashment of FIR is made out.

Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, prosecutrix was Constable in Police Department and was sub-ordinate to the applicant who Sub Inspector in Police Department and was

friend of prosecutrix's father. This is not a case where it can be said that prosecutrix was residing with the applicant in live-in-relationship. She executed any affidavit in this regard or not, is a matter of evidence. Looking to the allegations alleged against the applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement of prosecutrix recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C., only on the ground that FIR was

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 11/25/2022 6:40:05 PM

lodged after lapse of about 4-5 years of the incident, at this stage, it cannot be said that a story has been cooked up against the applicant to implicate him in this false and fabricated case. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the cases cited above are concerned, facts of the case in hand are distinguishable from the facts of the cases cited above as without evidence, it cannot be said that it is a case of consensual relationship and, therefore, this is a case of no evidence. Hence, no case for quashment of FIR is made out.

Petition devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE sh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 11/25/2022 6:40:05 PM