Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rudra Pratap Singh @ Bobby Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53570
.1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JAB AL PUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4575 of 2025
RUDRA PRATAP SINGH @ BOBBY RAJA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Jagat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aatmaram Bain, Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Prakhar Naveriya, Advocate for the objector.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed being
aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.205/2025 whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has framed the charge for offence punishable under Section
69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner/accused.
petitioner/accused
2. The concise facts leading to the conclusion of the present
petition are that the complainant/prosecutrix submitted a written application
addressed to the SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, District Chhatarpur on
22.04.2025 stating that she became acqua
acquainted
inted with the petitioner in May,
2024 through Instagram and since then they had been talking to each other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53570
.2.
through mobile phone. She had told the petitioner that she was married but
her case of divorce was pending. It is further stated that the petitioner had
promised to marry with her and on his promise, she went to Chhatarpur on
02.10.2024 where she stayed with the petitioner in a resort at Lalauni where
the petitioner made physical relations with her and assured her that he
would marry with her soon. Ho
However, later-on,
on, the petitioner denied to
marry. The prosecutrix stated that the petitioner committed rape upon her
several times by making false promise of marriage. On the basis of such
written application, FIR being Crime No.325/2025 for offence under
Section
ection 69 of BNS, 2023 has been registered against the petitioner at Police
Station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur.
2.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was submitted
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned and thereafter the case
was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions being exclusively triable by
it.
2.2 The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order has framed
charge for offence under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the same, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the entire
prosecution story is taken as true, even then no offence of rape can be made
out. It is further submitted that since the prosecutrix was already a married
woman at the time of alleged incident, there can be no promise of marriage
made to her on behalf of petitioner. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix
being a married woman cannot be induced into a physical relationship
under the assurance of the marriage. Th
Therefore,
erefore, it is prayed to allow this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53570
.3.
revision and the petitioner may be discharged from the offence as alleged
against him.
4. Per contra,
contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/State
submitted that the petitioner had entered into physical relationship wit
with the
prosecutrix by making a false promise of marriage, therefore, there arose a
clear notion of inducement for marriage. It is further submitted that the
evidence is not required to be appreciated at the stage of framing of charge.
Hence, the learned Ses
Sessions
sions Judge has not committed any error in framing
the charge and this revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary as also the documents available on record.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant/prosecutrix
complainant/prosecutrix was a married
woman as is evident from her written application submitted to the police
concerned wherein she stated that her marriage was solemnized in the year
2022. However, it has also been stated that a case of divorce from her
husband is pending
ing but none of the particulars of such divorce proceedings
have been collected during the course of investigation and produced before
the trial Court. Even, the prosecution utterly failed to produce any evidence
which could reveal that any divorce proceeding
proceeding was pending at the time of
incident or the prosecutrix got divorced from her husband at any point of
time till date.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Bharti Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) 2013 SCC OnLine SC 85 has held as under:-
"17. It is relevant
levant 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53570
.4.
unmarried person. The judgment and decree dated 23-9 9-2008
reveals that the complainant/prosecutrix was married to Lalji
Porwal on 14-6-2003.
14 2003. It also reveals that the aforesaid
marriage subsisted till 23 23-9-2008,
2008, when the two divorced one
another by mutual consent under Section 13-B 1 B of the Hindu
Marriage Act. In her supplementary statement dated 21 21-2-
2007, the complainant/prosecutrix accused Prashant Bharti of
having had physical relations with her on 23-12-2006,
23 2006, 25
25-12-
2006 and 1-1-2007
2007 at his residence, on the basis of a false
promise
omise 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 byy the complainant/prosecutrix, that the appellant-
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 subsis
subsisting
ting 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
2008 produced before us by the complainant/prosecutrix
complainant/prosecutrix
herself is taken into consideration along with the factual
position depicted in the supplementary statement dated
21-2-2007,
2007, it would clearly emerge that the
complainant/prosecutrix was in a relationship of adultery on
23-12-2006,, 2525-12-2006 and 1-1-2007 2007 with the appellant-
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
appellant-accused,
accused, on the
basis of a promise to marry her, stands irrefutably falsified."
8. Albeit, at the stage of framing of charge, it is not required to
examine the prosecution evidence in deep, however, the court can look into
the same so as to form a conclusive opinion whether any legal evidence is
available on record, which is sufficient ffor
or framing the charge. The legal
proposition with regard to the requirement of evaluation of the material
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53570
.5.
placed before the Court at the stage of framing of charge has been settled
and reiterated in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In case of State of
M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others, 2000 Cri.L.J. 944
944,, the Supreme Court
has observed that "the charge can be quashed if the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if
fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination
examination or rebutted by
defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular
offence. In such case there would be no sufficient groun
groundd for proceeding
with the trial".
9. In case of Onkar Nath Mishra and Others Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) and another, (2008) 2 SCC 561 it has been held that "it is a trite
law that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom, taken
taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all
the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is
not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record."
10. In the case at hand, it is apparently the prosecution case that
the complainant/prosecutrix was a married woman during the period from
May, 2024 to 02.10.2024. Presumably, if the prosecutrix allowed the
petitioner to make physical relationship with her, it can be construed that
the petitioner was her paramour and in the pursuit of extramarital
relationship, the prosecutrix plunged into carnal relationship with the
petitioner, which is nothing but can be termed as adultery, especially when
she was a validly married woman. Under these circumstanc
circumstances,
es, the assertion
of the complainant/prosecutrix that she was induced by the petitioner for
making physical relationship on the pretext of marriage, is irrefutably a
falsity.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53570
.6.
11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion of factual and legal
position, the prosecution
ecution case does not contain the necessary ingredients for
constituting the offence under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 against the
petitioner. Hence, the charge framed being not sustainable in the eyes of
law, the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the said charge.
12. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in
Sessions Trial No.205/2025 framing the charge against the petitioner for
offence under Section 69 of BNS is set aside. The petitioner is discharged
from the said charge.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
C.
