[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrakant Purandare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2919
1 MCRC-39592-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39592 of 2023
CHANDRAKANT PURANDARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
Shri Brijendra Singh Gour, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR No. 158/2023
registered at Police Station Madhoganj, District Gwalior for the offences
under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), and 323 of IPC and also for quashing the
pending trial RCT No. 4461/2023 before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.
2. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a widow and a
government servant. The petitioner was working in the same department, and
he is also a widower. The petitioner proposed marriage to the prosecutrix,
and on the false promise of marriage, on 01.01.2022 at about 7:00 PM, at his
flat situated at Shriji Apartment, Chitera Oli, Madhauganj, Gwalior, he
established physical relations with her against her will. Thereafter, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2919
2 MCRC-39592-2023
petitioner repeatedly had physical relations with the prosecutrix against her
consent. Later, on 17.04.2022, the petitioner and the prosecutrix got married
in Arya Samaj Mandir. However, the petitioner allegedly assured her that a
proper marriage would be performed later before family members. Even after
the said marriage, the petitioner continued to have physical relations with the
prosecutrix against her will. When the petitioner was transferred to Indore
and the prosecutrix asked him to keep her name in official records as his
wife, the accused assaulted her, threatened her, and stated that he had done a
fake marriage only for physical relations and that she was not his wife but
only his mistress. The last physical relation took place on 20.04.2023.
Thereafter, on 25.04.2023, FIR No. 158/2023 was lodged at Police Station
Madhoganj for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), and 323 IPC. After
investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and RCT Case No. 4461/2023
is pending before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is the
legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that their marriage was solemnized
on 17.04.2022 at Arya Samaj Mandir according to Hindu rites and rituals. It
is submitted that once the parties are legally married, the offence under
Section 376 IPC is not made out. The dispute between the parties is purely
matrimonial in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a
divorce petition on 20.04.2023, being Case No. 543/2023, before the Family
Court. Only after coming to know about the divorce proceedings, the
prosecutrix, with malafide intention and out of vengeance, lodged the present
false FIR on 25.04.2023. It is further submitted that the entire criminal case is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2919
3 MCRC-39592-2023
a pressure tactic to harass the petitioner and to force him to submit to illegal
demands regarding property and nomination. Even if the entire prosecution
story is accepted as it is, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out
because the parties are husband and wife. The continuation of criminal
proceedings is an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed
under Section 482 CrPC.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is an admitted
position that the petitioner and the prosecutrix got married on 17.04.2022 in
Arya Samaj Mandir. The prosecutrix herself states this fact in the FIR. Once
marriage is admitted, the relationship between the parties becomes that of
husband and wife. Therefore, allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC are
not legally sustainable. It has further been argued that the entire story shows
that the dispute started when the petitioner refused to add the name of the
prosecutrix in his service records and to make her nominee in his property
and service benefits. Further the dispute arose when the petitioner filed a
divorce petition on 20.04.2023, as only after this, the FIR was lodged on
25.04.2023, which clearly shows malafide intention. This clearly proves that
the criminal case has been filed only to pressurize and harass the
petitioner. It has further been argued that even if the entire FIR and charge-
sheet are accepted as true, the prosecutrix is the wife of the petitioner and the
physical relations entered were within marriage, therefore, the ingredients of
Section 376 IPC are not satisfied. At the most, the dispute may relate to
matrimonial cruelty or civil consequences, but not rape. It is further argued
that the criminal law has been set in motion to take revenge, to pressurize the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2919
4 MCRC-39592-2023
petitioner in a matrimonial dispute, and to force him to give property and
service benefits. Such misuse of criminal law is required to be quashed while
exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. To bolster his
submissions learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh
vs. State of Punjab ( Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.13277 of
2023, decided on 31.1.2025) and Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others (Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2024 (@ SLP (CRL.) NO.147/2017)
decided on 3.1.2024) and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for quashment of the FIR and also prays for quashment of the entire
proceedings of RCT Case No. 4461/2023 pending before the learned Trial
Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that there are specific and
serious allegations against the present petitioner and, therefore, he is not
entitled to any relief. It was pointed out that the trial is at an advanced stage,
the prosecution evidence has already been completed, and the defence
evidence is presently going on, therefore, the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised at this stage.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the material
available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that serious and specific allegations have been
made by the prosecutrix in the FIR and in her statements regarding repeated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2919
5 MCRC-39592-2023
sexual exploitation, physical assault, and deception. The prosecutrix has also
alleged that there was no valid marriage between the parties. Whether there
was a valid marriage between the parties, whether consent was obtained by
deception, whether the relationship was forced or consensual, and whether
the acts complained of constitute offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(N),
and 323 IPC are all serious and disputed questions of fact. These issues
cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and can be
decided only after proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. It is
well settled that while considering a petition under Section 482 CrPC, this
Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or to examine the truth or falsity
of the allegations. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh (supra)
and Ajeet Singh (supra) does not help the petitioner in the present case,
because the facts of this case disclose serious allegations which require
decision on the basis of evidence. This Court also takes note of the fact that
the trial is at an advanced stage. The prosecution evidence has already been
completed and the defence evidence is presently going on. At such a late
stage, interference under Section 482 CrPC would be wholly unjustified and
would only delay a lawful trial. The argument of the petitioner that the FIR is
a counterblast to the divorce proceedings and has been filed with malafide
intention is a matter of defence, which can be raised and considered by the
Trial Court on the basis of evidence. Such a plea cannot be accepted as a
ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. In view of the seriousness
of the allegations, the disputed questions of fact involved, the advanced stage
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2919
6 MCRC-39592-2023
of the trial, and the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a
fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
