Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nishant Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.18064 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
NISHANT JAIN S/O SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION
BUSINESS (PHARMACY), R/O E-7/817, ARERA
COLONY, BHOPAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BHOPAL (M.P.)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ALOK BAGRECHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
S.H.O. P.S. BAGSEVANIYA, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(M.P.)
2. VICTIM 'X'
......RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI SUNDARAM SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
................................................................................................................................................
RESERVED ON : 29.08.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2023
................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner is asking for following relief:-
"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the FIR dated
13.04.2022 and also quash the resulting charge sheet no.264 of
2022, dated 20.05.2022 pending in the court of Xth Add.
Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly quash all the proceedings
taken up in S.T. No.527/2022 on the file of Xth Add. Sessions
Judge, Bhopal.
(iii) Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions which
this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper may kindly be
granted to the petitioner."
2. The facts in compendium leading to filing of this petition are as
follows:-
(2.1) A complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 at
Police Station Bagsevaniya, District Bhopal, in pursuance to which, the
offence got registered on 13.04.2022 vide FIR/Crime No.263/2022 for
the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner.
(2.2) The complainant met with the petitioner first time in the year 2015
at Global Hospital, Arera Colony, where the petitioner was running a
pharmacy store and the complainant used to visit the hospital as her
family friend was getting treatment in the said hospital. The complainant
used to purchase medicines from the shop of the petitioner and as such,
they came closer and thereafter, their relationship converted into affair.
The petitioner used to visit the house of the complainant and physical
relation developed between them.
(2.3) As per the complainant, the petitioner assured her to get married
and because of that assurance, she has not objected to continue with the
said physical relationship, but when assurance given by the petitioner
could not be completed for long, the family members of the complainant
got her married with some other boy, despite that the petitioner used to
come to the house of the complainant and insisting her to get divorce
from her husband and then he would marry to her.
(2.4) In the year 2019, the petitioner entered into marriage with some
other girl and in the meantime, he had developed relation with the
husband of the complainant and continued with physical relation to the
complainant.
(2.5) In the year 2020, the husband of the complainant was sent to jail as
convicted in one of the criminal cases, but relationship between the
petitioner and the complainant was continued. According to the
complainant, the petitioner was continuously asking her to get divorce
from her husband and last in April, 2022, the petitioner has developed
physical relation and when the complainant asked him to get married to
her, he threatened her and also shown photographs saying if she would
follow him, the photographs would be shown to her husband.
(2.6) Thereafter, she narrated the story to her parents and they visited the
house of the petitioner to make them understand to ask their son not to
behave in such a manner and stop relationship with the complainant. A
written complaint was made by the complainant at Police Station
Bagsevaniya and as such, the offence got registered.
(2.7) The petitioner had also purchased a house situated over Khasra
No.143 and 144, Krishna Enclave, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal. A sale-
deed was executed in the name of petitioner by one Paramjeet Singh and
in the said house, the complainant started living as a tenant. The
complainant and her husband were involved in one criminal case, in
which, the husband of the complainant was convicted. The petitioner
thereafter asked the complainant to vacate his house, but it was refused
by the complainant/respondent No.2 and she also threatened the
petitioner saying that if she is asked to vacate the house, he would be
implicated in such offence.
(2.8) A civil suit i.e. RCSA No.573/23 has also been filed by the
complainant against the petitioner at Civil Court, Bhopal, for permanent
injunction and also seeking direction that the petitioner be directed not to
disturb the possession of the complainant/respondent No.2 and that after
clearing the installment of the loan, which had been taken for purchasing
the said house, the same would be transferred in the name of the
complainant.
(2.9) The complainant has also filed a complaint case i.e. UNCRC
No.2183/23 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, for registering an offence
against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code
saying that the petitioner fraudulently got registered a sale-deed in his
name of the house situated at Krishna Enclave where she is residing.
3. As per the facts and circumstances as existing in the present case,
the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of criminal proceeding
initiated against him in pursuance to FIR/Crime No.263/2022 and also
for quashing of charge-sheet No.264/22 filed on 20.05.2022 before the
Court of Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that
the challenge is based mainly on the ground that it is nothing, but a
malicious prosecution and even considering the contents of FIR, which
are the foundation of registering the FIR, sufficient ingredients for
constituting the offence of Section 376 are not available and as such,
offence is not made out. He has further submitted that, in fact, it is a case
of honey trap. The complainant trapped the petitioner just to grab his
property. A civil suit has also been filed by the complainant/respondent
No.2 asking relief therein that the petitioner be directed to transfer the
house, in which, she is residing as a tenant by executing a sale-deed in
her favour. He has submitted that in the ends of justice, the proceeding
pending against the petitioner is required to be quashed. He has
submitted that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
or exercising the inherent power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the Court can quash the proceedings if it is found that the alleged story of
rape is false and if proceedings are allowed to continue, that would be
nothing but an abuse of process of Court. To bolster his submission, the
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the
Supreme Court reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 parties being Vineet
Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State has opposed the
submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
developing physical relation on a false promise of marriage amounts to
committing rape and as such, nothing illegal has been doneregistering the
offence against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the FIR is not
an encyclopedia and everything in detail is not shown in the FIR.
According to the counsel for the State, from the contents of written
complaint, the offence of Section 376 is made out and as such, the
petition being without any substance, is liable to be dismissed.
6. The counsel for the objector has supported the submission made by
the counsel for the State and also prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties
and after perusal of record, it is clear that the offence vide FIR/Crime
No.263/22 got registered on 13.04.2022. The date of incident, as per the
FIR, is 05.08.2015 and 16.12.2021. The contents of FIR are as under:-
"12. First Information contents (पथम सचू ना तथय ): मै थाना अशोका गाररन मे उनन
के पद पर पदसथ हूँ आज नदनांक 13.04.22 को थाना बागसेवननया मे मनहला सबंधी ररपोरर होने से थाना
आमद आई आवेनदका गजु न चौकसे पतु ी सरु े नद चौकसे ननवासी आठ दकु ानो के पास पलार नबं र 160
बागमगु ानलया भोपाल ने एक हसत नलनखत आवेदन पत ननशांत जैन दारा माननसक व शाररररक रप से
पतानरत करने बावत पेश नकया। आवेदन पत के अवलोकन पर से आरोपी ननशांत जैन के नवरद पथम
दषया अपराध धारा 376 (2) एन. 506 भादनव का पाया जाने से अपराध पंजीबद कर नववेचना मे नलया
गया नवल आवेदन हसव जेल है। पनत थाना पभारी महोदय थाना बागसेवननया भोपाल (म.प.) नवषय
ननशात जैन दारा माननसक व शाररररक पतानरत करने वाला महोदय मेरा नाम गजु न चौकसे पतु ी सरु े नद
चौकसे ननवासी आठ दक ु ान के पास पलार नंबर 160 बागमगु ानलया भोपाल है महोदय लगभग 2015 मे
मेरा पररचय ननशांत जैन पतु राजेनद कुमार जैन से गलोबल असपताल अरे रा कालोनी मे हुआ था वहा उसका
मेरीकल सरोर था वहा उसने मझु े दोसती करने को कहा और धीरे धीरे मेरे घर पर आने जाने लगा एक साल
मेरे घर पर आतेजाते जराने मझु े और मेरे घर वालो को नवशास मे रखकर अचछी दोसती रखी एक नदन जब
मेरे घर पर कोई नही ता वह घर आया मेरे साथ जबरदसती शाररररक सबं धं बनाया और मैने जब मेरे घर
वालो को बताने का बोला तो चपु रहने का बोला और नवशास नदलाया नक शादी भी करे गा लेनकन दो तीन
साल जब रालता रहा तो मेरे घर वालो ने मेरी शादी कही और करदी लेनकन ननशा ंत जैन अपनी हरकतो से
बाज नही आया और मझु े लगातार आज तक पनु ः सबं ंध बनाने के नलये परेशान करता रहा है महोदय मेरे
घर वालो ने उसके घर जाकर उसको व उसके घर वालो को समझाया तो उनहोने भी ननशात जैन का पक
लेकर मेरे घर वालो को गाली गलौच की और कहा नक मै तमु हे झठू े अपराध मे फसा कर जेल नभजवा दगंू ा
महोदय मेरे घर मे मेरी मा हारर पेशेर है और मेरी छोरी बहन है जो अभी एलएबी की पराई कर रही है हम
सभी ररे व परे शान है कृ पा ननशांत जैन पतु राजेनद कुमार जैन ननवासी ई 7/12 एसआर आईजी बैक
कालोनी अरे रा कालोनी भोपाल मो.नं. (9893898043) के नखलाफ सखत काननू ी कायरवाही करके मझु
मनहला को नयाय नदलाये धनयवाद पाथर हसताकर अंगेजी मे अपठनीय गजंु न चौकसे पतु ी सरु े नद चौकसे उम
28 साल ननवासी पलार नब ं र 160 बागमगु ानलया भोपाल मो.न. 8643089108 भोपाल नदनाक ं
13.04.2022."
8. The written complaint, which is the foundation of FIR, made by
the complainant contained following:-
"पनत,
थाना पभारी महोदय
थाना बागसेवननया भोपाल (म.प.)
नवषय - ननशातं जैन दारा माननसक व शाररररक पतानड़त करने बावत् ।
महोदय,
मेरा नाम गंजु न चौकसे पतु ी सरु े नद चौकसे ननवासी आठ दक ु ान के पास पलार नंबर 160
बागमगु ानलया भोपाल है महोदय लगभग 2015 मे मेरा पररचय ननशांत जैन पतु राजेनद कुमार जैन से
गलोबल असपताल अरे रा कालोनी मे हुआ था वहा उसका मेरीकल सरोर था वहा उसने मझु े दोसती करने को
कहा और धीरे धीरे मेरे घर पर आने जाने लगा एक साल मेरे घर पर आतेजाते उसने मझु े और मेरे घर वालो
को नवशास मे रखकर अचछी दोसती रखी एक नदन जब मेरे घर पर कोई नही ता वह घर आया मेरे साथ
जबरदसती शाररररक संबंध बनाया और मैने जब मेरे घर वालो को बताने का बोला तो चपु रहने का बोला
और नवशास नदलाया नक शादी भी करे गा लेनकन दो तीन साल जब रालता रहा तो मेरे घर वालो ने मेरी
शादी कही और करदी लेनकन ननशांत जैन अपनी हरकतो से बाज नही आया और मझु े लगातार आज तक
पनु ः सबं धं बनाने के नलये परे शान करता रहा है ।
महोदय मेरे घर वालो ने उसके घर जाकर उसको व उसके घर वालो को समझाया तो उनहोने भी
ननशांत जैन का पक लेकर मेरे घर वालो को गाली गलौच की और कहा नक मै तमु हे झठू े अपराध मे फसा
कर जेल नभजवा दगंू ा ।
महोदय मेरे घर मे मेरी मा हारर पेशेर है और मेरी छोरी बहन है जो अभी एलएबी की पड़ाई कर
रही है हम सभी ररे व परे शान है ।
कृ पया ननशांत जैन पतु राजेनद कुमार जैन ननवासी ई 7/12 एसआर आईजी बँक व कालोनी
अरे रा कालोनी भोपाल मो नं- (9893898043) के नखलाफ सखत काननू ी कायरवाही करके मझु मनहला को
नयाय नदलाये ।
धनयवाद
पाथर हसताकर
गंजु न चौकसे पतु ी सरु ेनद चौकसे उम 28
ननवासी पलार नबं र 160 बाग मगु ानलया
भोपाल मो न-ं - 8643089108
भोपाल नदनांक 13.04.2022"
9. A copy of statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 recorded
in the Court has also been produced before the Court, in which the
relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
"03- वषर 2019 मे आरोपी ने भी सवयं नकसी और लड़की से शादी कर ली। मेरे से आरोपी यह भी
बोलता रहा नक अपने पनत से बोलना नक मै तमु हारा बेसर फे णर हूं और आरोपी ने मेरे पनत से भी दोसती कर
ली। वषर 2020 मे एक झठू े पकरण मे मेरे पनत को जेल हो गयी। आरोपी तब भी मेरे घर आता-जाता रहा
और मझु से कहने लगा नक तमु अपने पनत से तलाक ले लो, मै अपनी पतनी से तलाक ले लंगू ा। वषर 2021
मे भी आरोपी मझु से शारीररक सबं धं बनाने के नलए कहता रहा, लेनकन मैने कहा अब जो कुछ भी होगा,
शादी के बाद होगा।
04- नफर अपैल 2022 मे आरोपी ने मेरे साथ जबरदसती गलत काम (बलातकार) नकया। नफर कहा नक
आरोपी ने मेरे साथ गलत काम करने से पहले मझु े कार मे नबठा कर अवधपरु ी साइर ले गया था, वहां पर
मैने आरोपी से कहा नक तमु ने मेरे साथ नफर गलत काम कर नलया, तो आरोपी ने मझु से कहा नक सनु मेरी
बात मै तझू से शादी नही करंगा और जयादा नारक करे गी, तो मेरे पास तेरे फोरो-वीनरयो है, मै तेरे पनत को
नदखा दगंू ा, तो न तमु पनत की रहोगी और न ही नकसी और की रहोगी, और मझु े अवधपरु ी मे छोड़कर चला
गया, जब मै ऑरो से घर गयी, तब मैने अपनी मममी एवं बहन को सारी बात बताई।
10- यह कहना गलत है नक मेरे पकरण के जो नववेचक है, उनहे मै पहले से जानती हू।ं यह कहना गलत है
नक मैने सजं ीव चौकसे से नमलकर थाना बाग सेवननया मे ररपोरर दजर कराई है, जबनक मै नमसरोद थाने के
केत मे रहती हू।ं मेरा आरोपी ननशांत जैन से वषर 2008-09 से पररचय था, जबनक मेरी दोसती आरोपी से
वषर 2015 मे हुई थी। यह कहना सही है नक मैने अपने पदशर पी-1 के आवेदन मे आरोपी ननशातं जैन से
अपना पररचय वषर 2015 मे होना बताया है।
11- साकी को फोरो नदखाकर पछ
ू ा गया नक आरोपी ननशातं जैन के भाई के वषर 2011 के नववाह के फोरो
मे आप नदख रही है, तो साकी ने सवीकार नकया नक ननशाल जैन के भाई के नववाह के समय के है। साकी ने
यह भी सवीकार नकया नक उक फोरो मे लाल गोले से दशारयी गयी फोरो उसके ही है। उक फोरो पदशर
आनररकल ए-1 लगायत आनररकल ए-5 है।
13- यह कहना सही है नक मैने पदशर पी-6 धारा 164 द.ं प.स.ं के कथन देते समय यह बताया था नक मेरा
आरोपी से अनं तम बार नदसबं र 2021 मे शारीररक सबं धं बने थे। यह सही है नक मैने पनु लस को पदशर पी-1
का आवेदन, पदशर पी-2 की एफ.आई.आर. एवं धारा 164 के मनजसटेर कथन पदशर पी-6 तथा पनु लस
कथन पदशर पी-7 मे यह बताया था नक आरोपी से अपैल 2022 मे शारीररक सबं धं बने थे, यनद उक बात
पदशर पी-1 का आवेदन, पदशर पी-2 की एफ.आई.आर. एवं धारा-164 के मनजसटेर कथन पदशर पी-6
तथा पनु लस कथन पदशर पी-7 मे न नलखी हो तो मै कारण नही बता सकती।
15- मेरा अपने पनत से तलाक नही हुआ है। यह कहना गलत है नक मै वतरमान मे नजस मकान मे रह रही
हू,ं वह मकान आरोपी ननशांत जैन का है और उक मकान की रनजसटी ननशांत जैन के नाम से है , नजसकी
छायापनत पदशर री-1 है, यह कहना सही है नक मै नजस मकान मे ननवास कर रही हूं उस मकान का पता-
मकान नं. 143-144, जयोनत नगर, के नदीय सकूल क.-3, होशंगाबाद रोर, भोपाल है। यह कहना सही है
नक उक मकान आरोपी ननशातं जैन के नाम से है, सवतः कहा उक मकान मे मै वषर 2017 से रह रही हूं
तथा नपछले 2 साल से लोन के नलए पयास नकया, नकंतु मेरा लोन न होने के कारण मैने आरोपी ननशांत जैन
के नाम से लोन कराया, उकं मकान की रनजसटी 2019 मे हुई, नजसमे 10 लाख रपये का टांजेकशन
आर.री.जी.एस. के माधयम से नकया गया तथा नकशते मेरे दारा सवयं के कोरक मनहनदा बैक के एकाउंर से
अदा की जा रही है और मेरे दारा आरोपी को नगद लगभग 8 से 10 लाख रपये सवयं जाकर नदये है। यह
कहना गलत है नक उक रानश मेरे दारा अदा नही की गयी है।"
10. The complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 under
Section 200 was registered vide Case No.UNCR 2183/23, in which she
claimed relief that offence under Sections 420 and 406 be registered
against the petitioner. The complaint is dated 29.04.2023.
11. A civil suit i.e. RCSA 573/23 has also been filed by the
complainant/respondent No.2, in which, she has claimed decree in the
following manner:-
" क. यह नक पनतवादी कमांक 1 को आदेनशत नकया जाये नक वह वादनी के अबाध कबजे मे हसतकेप
न करे और न ही नकसी और से कराये और न ही उक वादगसत समपनत को नकसी अनय को नवके य
आनद करे । यह नक पनतवादी कमाक ं 1 को आदेनशत नकया जाये नक उक वादगसत समपनत की
समपणर नकशतो के भगु तान हो जाने के पशात् उक वादगसत समपनत वादनी के नाम हसतांररत कर
देवे ।
ख. यह नक पनतवादी कमांक 1 को आदेनशत नकया जावे नक उक वादगसत समपनत की समपणर नकशतो
के भगु तान हो जाने के पशात् उक वादगसत समपनत वादनी के नाम हसतांररत कर देवे ।
ग . यह नक पनतवादी कमांक 1 को ननदरनशत करे की उक वादगसत समपनत की लोन की नकशते
पनतवादी कमांक 1 अपने बैक खाते मे ही वादनी से पाप करे ।
घ. यह नक पनतवादी कमांक 1 वादनी का सपं णू र वाद वयय वहन करे । यहा नक पनतवादी कमांक 1 को
आदेनशत नकया जाए की वादनी दारा दी गई समपणू र रानश एक मशु त मय बयाज के वादनी को
बापास करे ।
र. यह नक पनतवादी कमांक 1 को आदेनशत नकया जाए की वादनी दारा दी गई समपणू र रानश एक
मशु त मय बयाज के वादनी को बापास करे ।
च. वादी को अनय अनतु ोष जो पकरण के तथयो से अनरु ोध हो वह वादी को नयायनहत मे पदान नकया
जावे।"
12. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Vineet Kumar (supra), in
which the petitioner has placed reliance, I am also of the opinion that the
case in hand is a clear case of malicious prosecution and if the
proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to an abuse of
process of law. The Supreme Court while dealing with the case of
quashing of FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has observed as under:-
"19. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant in the facts of the
present case were mala fide and falsely initiated to save the
complainant, her husband and son from making repayment of the
amount taken by them with regard to which complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the accused were already
filed and pending. After registration of case on application filed by
the complainant under Section 156(3) CrPC, the IO conducted
thorough investigation by recording the statements of the
complainant, her husband as well as husband's brother and brother's
wife. Various affidavits were also received by the IO and after
conducting investigation there were sufficient materials to come to
the conclusion that a story of alleged rape was wholly false and no
such incident had taken place as alleged by the complainant. He has
submitted a final report in the case which ought to have been
accepted by the learned Magistrate. It is contended that protest
petition has been allowed without adverting to the material collected
by the IO. The fact that the application under Section 156(3) CrPC
itself was filed after 8 days of alleged rape, there is no medical report
to prove the alleged rape, these were sufficient to discard the
allegations made by the complainant. Summoning of the accused of
such serious offence cannot be a mechanical exercise in the facts and
circumstances of the case and materials collected during investigation
which were part of the final report were required to be adverted to by
the Court while rejecting the final report. The learned counsel
submits that the prosecution in the present case is a clear abuse of the
process of the court and deserves to be set aside in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court.
23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down
several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [State of Karnataka v.
L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] held that
the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment,
the following has been stated: (SCC p. 703)
"7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process
of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the
very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution
rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity
for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of
the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and
its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and
contours of that salient jurisdiction."
28. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N.(2009) 14 SCC 244 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1349] , this Court was considering the challenge
to the order of the Madras High Court where application was under
Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498-
A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was
contended before this Court that the complaint filed was nothing but
an abuse of the process of law and allegations were unfounded. The
prosecuting agency contested the petition filed under Section 482
CrPC taking the stand that a bare perusal of the complaint discloses
commission of alleged offences and, therefore, it is not a case which
needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted the case of the
prosecution and dismissed the application. This Court referred to the
judgment in Bhajan Lal case [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and held that the case fell
within Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held
that the application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it
quashed the proceedings.
30. From the material on records, the following facts are
disclosed from the sequence of events which preceded the
registration of FIR on 6-11-2015. The complainant, her husband and
son had taken different amounts totalling Rs 22 lakhs 50 thousand in
the month of May 2015 for business/shop purposes from the accused.
Three agreements were written on non-judicial stamp papers on 29-5-
2015, 1-6-2015 and 31-8-2015 wherein the complainant, her husband
and son have acknowledged receipt of the money in cash as well as
by cheque. Cheques of Rs 6 lakhs, Rs 14 lakhs 50 thousand were
given to the accused for ensuring the repayment. Cheques were
drawn on Prathama Bank, Kanth Branch, District Moradabad.
Cheques were deposited in the bank which were returned with
endorsements "No Sufficient Balance". After cheques having been
dishonoured, complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act were filed by the accused against the husband and
son of the complainant which were registered in the month of
September/October and were pending before alleged incident dated
22-10-2015.
38. There was sufficient material on record to indicate that
there were financial transactions between the accused and the
complainant, her husband and son. On dishonour of cheques issued
by the complainant's husband and son, proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were already initiated by the
accused. All family members of the complainant were living in the
same house. The brother of the complainant's husband and his wife,
in their statements before the IO have admitted monetary transactions
of his brother with the accused. The statements before the IO of both
Nikesh Kumar and Smt Bina Vishnoi have already been extracted
above, which were part of the case diary and was material which
ought to have been looked into which was submitted by the IO in the
final report.
40.4. Thus, the above was the case where despite statement
under Section 164 CrPC by the prosecutrix the Court referring to
material collected during investigation had held that the case was fit
where the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings."
13. Considering the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to quash the
proceedings when Court comes to the conclusion that a person is being
harassed by implicating him in a case of false promise of marriage
because for the complainant/prosecutrix, it is very easy to say when a
male comes in her connection and relationship developed between them
and that culminated into physical relation only because he has promised
to get married to her.
14. In the present case, as per the existing facts, promise was made by
the petitioner as per the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2
and he failed to fulfill that promise, both the complainant and the
petitioner got married to somewhere else, but a complaint was made by
the complainant. Even after marriage, both were in physical relationship.
The complainant was already married, despite that she was accepting the
assurance of marriage from the petitioner and was continued with him in
physical relationship. As narrated by the complainant, she came into
contact with the petitioner only in the year 2015, whereas as per the
statement and material produced, they were knowing each other much
prior to year 2015. In a suit filed by the complainant, she has not only
claimed permanent injunction, but also claimed decree that the petitioner
be directed to clear the installments and execute the sale-deed of the
house in the name of complainant, it shows that the complainant was
after the property of the petitioner. The background of the complainant is
also not clean. She was facing a criminal case of fraud in which her
husband is convicted.
15. The Supreme Court in number of cases has observed that on the
basis of promise of marriage if prosecutrix remained in relationship with
the same person for long and not raising any objection, the same would
not amount to commission of rape. The Supreme Court in a case reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 [Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)], has observed as under:-
"20. The bone of contention raised on behalf of the
respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual
relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had
given a false promise to marry her and subsequently he did not
marry, and therefore such consent was no consent in the eye of law
and the case fell under the Clause - Secondly of Section 375 IPC.
In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is a difference
between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise
by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the
beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix
and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a
false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust,
whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a
possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all
seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have
encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the
circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill
his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise
to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the
offence under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case would
depend upon its proved facts before the court."
16. Further, in case of Dr. Dhruvram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191, the Supreme
Court has observed as under:-
"23. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and
consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully
examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the
victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to
this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit
of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere
breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the
accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce
the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not
amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees
to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for
the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created
by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances
which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his
control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to
do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had
any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a
clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical
relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence
under Section 376 IPC."
17. Thus, I am of the opinion that under the existing facts and
circumstances of case, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the abovecited cases, such prosecution which is apparently
malicious, cannot permitted to be continued. As such, the FIR registered
vide Crime No.263/2022 is quashed. The proceedings of sessions trial
initiated in pursuance to the charge sheet No.264/22 are also quashed.
18. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed.
No order as to cost.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
Digitally signed by ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Date: 2023.10.07 15:37:42
+05'30'
