Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyanendra Katare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
MISC. MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 15133 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GYANENDRA KATARE S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH
CHANDRA KATARE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PATRAKARITA R/O KAMAL SINGH KA
BAG SHINDE KI CHAWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK PARASHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION INDERGANJ,
LASHKAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PROSECUTRIX THROUGH POLICE STATION
INDERGANJ DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VEERENDRA SINGH PAL - DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL
AND SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 27-09-2023
Delivered on : 05-03-2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders coming on for
pronouncement this day, delivered the following:-
ORDER
1. The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
quashment of FIR registered against the petitioner and consequential
criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.02/2019 registered at
Police Station Inderganj District Gwalior for offence under Section
376 of IPC.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that an FIR got registered by
respondent No.2/complainant/prosecutrix on 02-01-2019 who
happens to be a lady aged 29 years against the petitioner for offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC with the allegations that by
profession petitioner and prosecutrix are correspondents and in the
year 2010 they were doing job in an establishment namely Patrika
Dainik Newspaper, therefore, both became friends. Thereafter
intimacy developed between the parties and it is alleged that on the
pretext of marriage, petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix and thereafter occasionally petitioner used to make
physical relation with her. It is further alleged that since petitioner
refused to marry the prosecutrix, therefore, she lodged the complaint
at the concerned police station. On the complaint of prosecutrix, FIR
at crime No.02/2019 for offence under Section 376 of IPC has been
registered against the petitioner.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on
24-07-2019 and trial is under consideration.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that from the
very contents of FIR, improbable event has been conceptualized by
prosecutrix and case suffers from vexatious litigation just to harass
petitioner. In 2010, she came in the contact of petitioner and she
remained in contact with the petitioner till 2019. They shared
emotional and physical proximity on their own volition and thereafter
she lodged the FIR against the petitioner. This indicates that
prosecutrix wants to harass the petitioner with some ulterior motive.
It is further submitted that since petitioner and prosecutrix were doing
job in an establishment, therefore, she knew about the marital status
of petitioner even then on her own volition, she continued to remain
in relationship with the petitioner. The prosecutrix got the present FIR
registered against the petitioner in order to get revenge from the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers the contents of FIR and
submits that FIR itself indicates that many a times petitioner made
proposal for marriage but the prosecutrix refused. Therefore, it is not
a case where petitioner gained proximity for ulterior motive.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only on refusal
to marry, case for offence under Section 376 of IPC cannot be made
out against the petitioner. To bolster his submission, he relied upon
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, AIR 2019 SC 327, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State and complainant opposed
the submissions and prayed for dismissal of this petition on the
ground that trial will decide the fate of the case. Learned counsel for
the complainant referred the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 13 SCC 1 and
prayed for dismissal of this petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
9. This is a case where petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of
proceedings as referred above. Contents of FIR indicates that
petitioner and prosecutrix came in touch with each other in 2010 in
the office of a News Paper where both used to work as employees.
After some initial acquaintance, they became friends and as per
allegations, petitioner proposed the respondent for marriage.
Thereafter they started sharing emotional and physical proximity.
This continued for 5 years till 2015 when prosecutrix joined some
other News Paper at Indore and petitioner transferred to Khandwa and
continued to visit prosecutrix. There also he made physical intimacy
with prosecutrix apparently with consent.
10. Perusal of contents of FIR indicate that relationship proceeded on
consent and physical proximity was there between the parties.
Petitioner rightly refers the contents of FIR wherein it has been
referred that petitioner made proposal for marriage but prosecutrix
did not accept. Therefore, on the ground that their relationship
continued for many years and during that period petitioner made
proposal for marriage then it is to be inferred that petitioner wanted to
marry her. Although counsel for the complainant rebutted the
submission of petitioner's counsel that petitioner was a married man
but even if that contention is accepted, even then it appears that case
is of relationship shared by the parties for a considerable period of
years. Incidentally Medical report/DNA report also belies the
allegation, therefore, principle as enunciated by the Apex Court in the
cases of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra) and Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar (supra) appears to be applicable in the present
case. Since petitioner and the prosecutrix worked in an establishment
for 5 years from 2010 to 2015, they knew each other and shared
emotional and physical relationship, therefore, it is obvious that
prosecutrix was proceeded in relationship voluntarily.
11. The relationship of petitioner and prosecutrix started from 2010 and it
continued till 2015 at Gwalior itself and thereafter at Indore petitioner
and prosecutrix were also in relationship and only in 2019,
prosecutrix alleged in relation to commission of rape with her on the
pretext of false promise of marriage. Medical report of prosecutrix
also does not support the case of prosecution and it does not infer
anything agaisnt the petitioner. Thus, the case appears to be
something other than commission of offence.
12. In the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madanlal Kapoor
(2013) 3 SCC 330 the Apex Court has given guidance, under which
circumstances, documents relied by the accused can be considered in
a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an
accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that
it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to
quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power
vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise
of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would
not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
13. The Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 laid down the
different exigencies under which interference under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can be made. The case of petitioners falls within those
exigencies.
14. Here, it appears that from the very perusal of contents of FIR, no
offence is made out and perusal of charge-sheet and different
statements further substantiates the arguments of petitioner. It would
be miscarriage of justice if such allegations are allowed to sustain and
petitioner is unnecessarily dragged into litigation to defend himself.
In view of the guidance given by the Apex Court in Dr. Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar (supra) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra).
In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), the Apex Court
has considered the discussion made in Anurag Soni (supra) and
thereafter held in the following manner:
To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above
cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375
must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards
the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was
vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a
promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The
promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given
in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the
time it was given. The false promise itself must be of
immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's
decision to engage in the sexual act."
15. On the basis of cumulative analysis, perusal of charge-sheet and
nature of allegations, no case for trial is made out. From the very
contents of FIR and attending circumstances, case appears to be weak
enough and hence FIR registered at Crime No.02/2019 registered at
Police Station Inderganj District Gwalior for offence under Section
376 of IPC and consequential criminal proceedings are hereby
quashed. Petitioner stands discharged from all the charges and
allegations.
16. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the petitioner succeeds and
allowed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
Anil* JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2024.03.05
20:20:00 +05'30'
