Madhya Pradesh High Court
Robin Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
1 MCRC-30064-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30064 of 2024
ROBIN JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Duggal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed seeking the
following relief:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble High Court
may kindly be pleased to quash FIR No.369/2023 dated
23/11/2-23 registered by P.S.Mahila Thana, Bhopal
(contained in Annexure A/1) , as well as all
consequential proceedings in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience."
2 . It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that FIR in Crime
No.369/20023 has been registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Bhopal
City for offence under sections 498-A, 377, 506 of IPC and under sections
3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3 . By relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case
of Manish Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
MP 2603, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that in view of the
2 MCRC-30064-2024
definition of "rape" as given under section 375 of IPC, unnatural sex with his
own wife will not be an offence and thus, it is submitted that the chargesheet
filed under section 377 of IPC may be quashed.
4 . Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
State. It is submitted that so far as the offence under section 377 of IPC is
concerned, the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manish Sahu
(supra) can always be taken into consideration by the trial court while
deciding the question of framing of charges.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that the charges
have not been framed and the case is fixed for framing of charges. Although
the pendency of trial for framing of charges cannot be a sole ground for
dismissing the application for quashment of the FIR/chargesheet but in the
present case no arguments have been advanced by the counsel for the
applicant with regard to allegations made under section 498-A and has
reserved his right to argue before the trial court at the stage of framing of
chargesheet. Even if the submissions made by counsel for the applicant in
respect of charge under section 377 of IPC is accepted, still it is clear that the
entire chargesheet will not be quashed.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
no useful purpose would be served by entertaining this application.
8. Accordingly, with liberty to the applicant to address the trial court
on the issues of framing of charges, specifically under section 377 of IPC in
the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manish Sahu
3 MCRC-30064-2024
(supra) as well as on other grounds, which may be available to the applicant,
the application is dismissed.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the
case and the trial court shall decide the question of framing of charges
without getting influenced or prejudiced by dismissal of this application.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA )
JUDGE
TG /-
