Manoj Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3227 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoj Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

                          1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                     JABALPUR
                      BEFORE

       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

            ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2024

       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.27094 OF 2018


BETWEEN:-

MANOJ SINGH CHOUHAN SON OF SHRI VANSROOP
SINGH CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BY
OCCUPATION-GOVT. SERVANT, POSTED AS SUB-
INSPECTOR OF POLICE AT SINGRAULI, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE PADUA, PO-PIPRONDH DISTRICT KATNI (M.P.)


                                      ....APPLICANT

(BY SHRI MANISH DATT- SR. ADVOCATE WITH EISHANT
DATT- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION-KAMLA NAGAR DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)

2. SMT. NAMRTA GAJBHIYE W/O SHRI KAUSHAL
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O EWS-306
KOTRA SULTANABAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)

                                     ....RESPONDENT
                                    2




(SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA- PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI YM TIWARI-ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

This petition came up for hearing on 1.2.2024 and the order was
kept reserved. :


                              ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR/Crime No.249/2018 registered for

the offences under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506/34 of IPC at Police

Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal along with all subsequent proceedings

undertaken in pursuance thereof on the basis of compromise.

2. On 10.4.2023, the following order was passed by the

High Court:

"Petitioner and prosecutrix are present.

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Prosecutrix is a 30 years old woman. They have moved an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.

As they have amicably settled and resolved their dispute and do not want to prosecute the case registered at Crime No.249/2018 of Police Station

Kamla Nagar, Bhopal and an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed, it would be appropriate to direct Registrar (J-II) of this Court to record their statement with regard to genuineness and correctness of compromise.

Parties are directed to remain present before the Registrar (J-II) of this Court at 4 P.M. today.

Registrar (J-II) after verifying the correctness and genuineness of the compromise shall submit his report to this Court.

In the meantime, interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall remain continue.

List this case on 26.4.2023."

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the statements of both the parties

were recorded by the Registrar (J-II) on 10.4.2023. The Registrar (J-

II) also put questions to the victim in order to verify the voluntariness

of the proposed compromise between the parties. The victim has

expressed herself that the compromise in question has been done with

her free Will and volition and without any threat and inducement of

any type. The Registrar (J-II) ultimately found that the victim was not

under any threat, inducement or pressure and the parties have

amicably resolved their dispute. Finally the compromise was found to

be genuine in nature. The report dated 10.4.2023 has been placed on

record along with the statements of the parties in a sealed cover.

3. It is a settled principle that compounding in a heinous

offence cannot be allowed in a routine manner unless and until a

strong case is made out. The Court should not normally exercise the

powers of quashing of the proceedings even on compromise in a

routine manner. In order to appreciate the controversy and the gravity

of offences, this Court proceeded to have a glance over the allegations

in the FIR. The FIR was recorded by the complainant with the

allegations that complainant knew Manoj Singh Chouhan, son of Shri

Vanshswaroop, aged 29 years. In the year 2009, the complainant and

the petitioner were studying in Unique College, Jawahar Chowk in

BBA Course and became friends. In the month of November, 2009,

the petitioner took the complainant for strolling and roaming to Lake

View on a motorcycle and on the midway by turning the vehicle, took

the complainant to his room under the pretext that he had to bring

some money and after bolting the room, he made physical relationship

with the complainant. The complainant opposed him, but the

petitioner asked her to keep mum on account of bad name and he felt

sorry repeatedly and also said that after completing his studies he will

marry the complainant. The complainant trusted him and due to fear

of bad name, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter,

the petitioner by projecting fear of bad name and also by threatening,

made physical relationship with the complainant. In the month of

May-June, 2010 the complainant became pregnant and she gave this

information to the petitioner and asked him to marry her. Thereafter,

the petitioner took the complainant to the Maata Mandir, Bhopal,

where he said that in the year 2011, after completing the graduation,

he will marry the complainant. He administered one tablet from

abortion kit to the complainant. After two days again, he gave two

tablets and then two tablets on the next day. On account of this,

abortion took place. In the year 2011, she again became pregnant

from the petitioner and the petitioner again gave tablets for abortion

and ultimately abortion was done. On account of repeated asking of

the complainant for marrying her, the petitioner got her introduced

with his cousin brother Lucky alias Parivesh Sengar Balle Bhaiya. He

also got the complainant talked to his mother on telephone and all of

them gave assurance to the complainant that they would marry her

with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Indore for

studies and from the year 2011 to 2013, he studied in IFS Academy,

Indore for MBA Course and during this period he used to visit Bhopal

also. In the month of May, 2013 the complainant got job in a company

at Indore, where she took a house on rent and the petitioner used to

come to meet her and used to make physical relationship with her. In

the month of February-March, 2014 the petitioner harassed her. The

complainant made a complaint by dialing number 100, but thereafter

also the petitioner remained in contact with her and made physical

relationship against her wishes. He also threatened the complainant

that he would defame her in case she does not act in tune with him.

The complainant became frightened. On 18.2.2016, the complainant

got married with one Kaushal Vishwakarma and they were living

happily as husband and wife. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to make

contact with the complainant and under the pretext of feeling sorry,

forced the complainant to meet him. The petitioner came to Indore for

training, where he again made physical relationship with the

complainant after giving threat of killing her. When the husband of

the complainant came to know about these facts, the petitioner also

threatened the complainant that in case she does not take divorce from

her husband, then he would defame her in the society. During this

period of threat, the complainant filed a court case for divorce on

consent, but later on withdrew the same. The complainant as of now

is a married wife of her husband. On 11.2.2018 the petitioner came to

her house at Bhopal and forcibly took her to the roof and in the room

situated at the roof he again made physical relationship with her and

also threatened her that he would throw her family members from the

roof. The complainant made a complaint of this on 11.2.2018 in the

Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal, where the compromise took

place between them. On 12.2.2018 the petitioner came to her house

and tried to take her forcibly and on this the mother of the

complainant asked him as to where he was taking her, then the

petitioner told that they are going to marry each other. The mother of

the complainant, after becoming helpless, also accompanied them to

the Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhopal, where the petitioner got her

signatures on some papers in haste and also performed marriage. The

petitioner many a times made physical relationship against the wishes

of the complainant and also gave threat of killing the complainant.

The complainant remained under fear and therefore, she did not lodge

any report. With these allegations the FIR came to be registered on

24.4.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the

order dated 10.7.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bhopal in RCH HM-219/2018 submitted that the petitioner filed a

petition under Section 11/12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for

short "Act, 1955") against the complainant in the Family Court at

Bhopal for annulling the marriage. The Court on the basis of

compromise passed the order dated 10.7.2021, annulling the marriage

in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

FIR has been lodged by the complainant only after receiving the

notice of the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 11 and 12

of the Act, 1955. The complainant remained in consensual

relationship with the petitioner even before her marriage with Kaushal

Vishwakarma and thereafter the factum of marriage with Kaushal

Vishwakarma was concealed by the complainant and that gave rise to

filing of the petition under Section 11/12 of the Act, 1955 where a

compromise took place between the parties and a decree was passed

on 10.7.2021, declaring the marriage between the parties dated

12.2.2018 to be null and void. Vide the aforesaid compromise the

petitioner was required to withdraw his case filed under Section 420

of IPC against the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another (Criminal

Appeal No.1217/2022) decided on 10.8.2022 and contended that

though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings where

heinous and serious offences are involved, but the High Court is not

foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for

incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient

evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the

offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as

to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into

harmony between them, which may improve their mutual

relationship. It is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the

proceedings. In the present case, the parties have not led any evidence

so far in the case registered under Section 376 of IPC. The Hon'ble

Apex Court ultimately quashed the proceedings in the aforesaid case

on the basis of compromise after finding the compromise to be

genuine in nature.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Sonu

@ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of UP and another (Criminal Appeal

No.233/2021) decided on 1.3.2021 and submitted that an FIR was

recorded with the allegation of developing physical relationship under

the pretext of marriage, which ultimately spread over a period of more

than one year and during this period, the parties also remained in

contact with her family members and under that process of consensual

relationship, they even got marriage with each other. Lodging of FIR

with this background was held to be an abuse of process of law. The

relationship between the parties was a consensual in nature, which

remained in force for more than one year. In the present case, there

was a consensual relationship between the parties even before the

marriage of the complainant with Kaushal Vishwakarma, and the FIR

has been lodged by the complainant only after receiving the notice of

the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act,

1955. The petitioner vide order dated 10.7.2021. got a decree of

annulment being null and void on the basis of compromise. In the

present case the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the

factum of compromise has been supported by the learned counsel for

the respondent, who has shown his willingness to get the matter

patched up in order to allow the parties to live in peace.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Dr.

Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18

SCC 191 and contended that consensual involvement in sexual

intercourse by the victim without there being any misconception

created by accused does not constitute rape. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also relied upon Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 and contended that even in consensual

relationship without any assurance, the offence under Section 376 of

IPC would not be substantiated, but in the instant case even the

consensual relationship ultimately resulted in marriage and that was

annulled on the basis of compromise, as the petitioner had ventured to

file a petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Act, 1955 on account of

previous marital status of the complainant, which is an admitted

position in the FIR.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel however,

opposed the prayer, but could not dispute the factual position of the

case.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, the allegations in the FIR which on the face of it are suggestive

of the fact that the parties were in relationship for many years. During

the intervening period, the complainant even got married with

Kaushal Vishwakarma. Thereafter by concealing that marriage, she

got married with the petitioner and ultimately that marriage was

annulled under Section 11/12 of the Act, 1955 on the basis of

compromise. Bare perusal of the FIR in question is found to be the

counter blast to the petition filed under Section 11/12 of the Act,

1955, when the notice of the said petition was served upon the

complainant. The allegations are vague enough to be appreciated in

the context of repeated alleged sexual assaults even in the house of

the complainant, which is beyond the comprehension of an ordinary

person. The FIR in question does not spell out much less prima facie

offence, which may attract the culpability in terms of Section 376 (N)

of IPC. The alleged termination of pregnancy is not supported by any

medical evidence, except the bald statement of administering some

tablets for doing abortion. Since the parties have resolved the

controversy, therefore the present case is having peculiar background

in which the compromise in question can be treated to be genuine

compromise in the facts and circumstance of the case.

9. In my considered opinion, the parties have successfully

brought out a case of peculiar facts and circumstances, thereby

bringing the same out of general perception for not interfering in the

heinous offences. Since the offence under Section 376 is not found to

have been established being solely based upon consensual

relationship, (which ultimately resulted in married also), therefore this

Court treats this case to be an extraordinary case for interference in

exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR

along with all subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise.

Under these circumstances the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to

be exercised ex-debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of law

and the Court and also to achieve ends of justice.

10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the FIR/Crime

No.249/2018 registered for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N) and

506/34 of IPC at Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal along with all

subsequent proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby

quashed. The petition is hereby allowed. Normal consequences to

follow.

(Raj Mohan Singh) Judge 05/02/2024

MANZOOR AHMED 2024.02.06 15:30:47 +05'30' Ansari