Dr. Brijesh Kumar Korku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4717 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Brijesh Kumar Korku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                                                   1


IN             THE                   HIGH                     COURT OF                                      MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                                        BEFORE
                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                        ON THE 19TH OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                                   M.CR.C. No.47904 Of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DR. BRIJESH KUMAR KORKU S/O SHRI TIRATHMAN
KORKU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, BY OCCUPATION
GOVERNMENT VETERINARY DOCTOR, RESIDENT
OF DIXIT COLONY, GHURWA, POLICE STATION
BHAGWA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)
                                                                                                                                      ....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ESHAAN DATT -
ADVOCATE)
AND

1.            STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
              POLICE  STATION   BHAGWA, DISTRICT
              CHHATARPUR (M.P.)
2.            VICTIM - A
                                                                                                                                 ......RESPONDENTS
(SHRI B.K. UPADHYAY-                                              DEPUTY                   GOVERNMENT                             ADVOCATE                        FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(SHRI S.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)
..............................................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on   : 22.11.2023
Pronounced on : 19.02.2024
..............................................................................................................................................................................
              This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
                                                                                  ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') seeking quashing of charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in respect of FIR/Crime

No.142/2022 whereby the offence has been registered at Police Station Bhagwa, District Chhatarpur under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC'). The subsequent proceedings based upon the said charge-sheet have also been sought to be quashed.

2. As per the facts of the case, the prosecution story as reflects from the contents of FIR is that the alleged incident said to have been taken place on 05.07.2022 and the FIR of the said incident was lodged on 21.07.2022 stating therein that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with Mr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav in the year 2010 and they blessed with one daughter, but since 2018, the prosecutrix started living separately from her husband at her parental home with her daughter. In the year 2019, she came into contact with the petitioner through facebook and they started chatting with each other and also shared their phone numbers. The petitioner and the prosecutrix used to talk with each other on phone and she narrated the whole facts about her past to the petitioner, but even after knowing about the said fact, the petitioner proposed her for marriage and continued with talking to the prosecutrix and her daughter. The petitioner has also assured the prosecutrix that after marriage of his sister, he would marry with the prosecutrix. On 03.07.2022, the prosecutrix came from Andman to Delhi. On 04.07.2022 from Delhi to Gwalior. On 05.07.2022 from Gwalior to Sagar and thereafter from Sagar to Ghuwara, then the maid of the petitioner brought the prosecutrix to his house and thereafter the petitioner developed physical relation with the prosecutrix giving assurance of marriage to her and thereafter he asked the prosecutrix to stay in a hotel at Chhatarpur and assured that after two days he would come with his mother, but he did not turn up and ran away cheated the prosecutrix and also switched off his mobile phone. The prosecutrix then

came to the police station on 20.07.2022 to lodge the report against the petitioner and then offence was registered under Section 376 of IPC against him.

3. Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecutrix is based upon the allegation that on a false pretext of marriage physical relation was developed by the petitioner and as such, he has committed rape with her. Although, as per the petitioner, he has denied the said allegation and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in alleged offence. He has further submitted that it is a case of honeytrap and according to Shri Datt, the case of 376 of IPC is not made out considering the over all circumstances, especially that the petitioner and the prosecutrix both were familiar to each other, were in connection through facebook and mobile phone, prosecutrix being educated lady, major and married came from Andman to Sagar and alleged that on the false pretext of marriage physical relation was developed. Shri Datt has submitted that it was virtually impossible for the petitioner to get married with the prosecutrix even after knowing the fact that she was already married and no divorce with regard to first marriage was taken place. Shri Datt has further submitted that the prosecutrix is in the habit of making such type of false allegation against the persons like the petitioner and in one of the cases, she lodged similar type of complaint against one Dr. Abhishek Singh, resident of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and offence was registered against him vide Crime No.291/2023 at Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 328, 504 and 506 of IPC. He has submitted that the prosecutrix, in fact, is a blackmailer. As per the documents filed by him, the said case was registered vide Crime No.291/2023, in which the statement of the

prosecutrix under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded wherein she has virtually narrated the same story and alleged the same thing as has been alleged against the present petitioner. He has further submitted that the Supreme Court in number of cases has observed that if allegation is by a lady who is already married that the physical relation was developed by giving false assurance of marriage by the accused, then offence of Section 376 is not made out. According to the petitioner, though he has denied the allegation, but even otherwise in the present circumstances, it is a case of consensual relationship if the allegation made by the prosecutrix is considered to be true in respect of developing physical relation. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293 [Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)], in which the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"17. It is relevant to notice, that she had alleged, that she was induced into a physical relationship by Prashant Bharti, on the assurance that he would marry her. Obviously, an inducement for marriage is understandable if the same is made to an unmarried person. The judgment and decree dated 23-9-2008 reveals that the complainant/prosecutrix was married to Lalji Porwal on 14-6-2003. It also reveals that the aforesaid marriage subsisted till 23-9-2008, when the two divorced one another by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In her supplementary statement dated 21-2- 2007, the complainant/prosecutrix accused Prashant Bharti of having had physical relations with her on 23-12-2006, 25-12-2006 and 1-1- 2007 at his residence, on the basis of a false promise to marry her. It is apparent from irrefutable evidence, that during the dates under reference and for a period of more than one year and eight months thereafter, she had remained married to Lalji Porwal. In such a fact situation, the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix, that the appellant- accused had physical relations with her, on the assurance that he would marry her, is per se false and as such, unacceptable. She, more than anybody else, was clearly aware of the fact that she had a subsisting valid marriage with Lalji Porwal. Accordingly, there was no question of anyone being in a position to induce her into a physical relationship under an assurance of marriage. If the judgment and decree dated 23-9- 2008 produced before us by the complainant/prosecutrix herself is taken into consideration along with the factual position depicted in the

supplementary statement dated 21-2-2007, it would clearly emerge that the complainant/prosecutrix was in a relationship of adultery on 23-12- 2006, 25-12-2006 and 1-1-2007 with the appellant-accused, while she was validly married to her previous husband Lalji Porwal. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that the assertion made by the complainant/prosecutrix, that she was induced to a physical relationship by Prashant Bharti, the appellant-accused, on the basis of a promise to marry her, stands irrefutably falsified.

x x x

25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarised in the foregoing two paragraphs; we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar case [Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158] stand satisfied. All the steps can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material available before it, while passing the impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant-accused, in exercise of the inherent powers vested with it under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are satisfied that the first information report registered under Sections 328, 354 and 376 of the Penal Code against the appellant-accused, and the consequential charge-sheet dated 28-6-2007, as also the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 1-12-2008, deserves to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed."

4. Thus, in view of the view expressed by the Supreme Court and the fact that the prosecutrix is in the habit of implicating innocent persons in a false case considering the fact that after getting the case registered against the present petitioner, narrating same story, she has registered a case against one Dr. Abhishek Singh at Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow vide Crime No.291/2023 and in my opinion, this is a fit case in which this Court can exercise the extraordinary power provided under Section 482 of CrPC and can quash the charge-sheet as well as the subsequent proceedings based upon false complaint.

5. Although, the counsel for the State and the Complainant have opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that in the present case, statement of the prosecutrix along with other witnesses has also been recorded and at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the power provided under Section 482 of CrPC and quash the charge-sheet.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, especially the statement of the prosecutrix and looking to the facts and circumstances as produced before this Court and the discussion made hereinabove and the view expressed by the Supreme Court, it is clear that it is a malicious prosecution and if it is allowed to be continued, that would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

7. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the yardsticks for quashing of FIR. The relevant paragraphs i.e. 102 and 103 are as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this is a fit case in which this Court can exercise the power provided under Section 482 of CrPC and as such, the FIR registered vide Crime No.142/2022 at Police Station Bhagwa, District Chhatarpur against the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings based upon the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution are also quashed.

9. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-