Chetanya Kumar Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3484 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 722/2022

Chetanya Kumar Paliwal S/o Prem Shankar Paliwal, Aged About 37 Years, Brahmpuri, Khamnor, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Sushila Paliwal W/o Chandra Prakash Paliwal, Navratan Complex, Fatehpura, Sukher, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. M.S. Deora, through VC

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

07/03/2022

1. By way of present petition under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, petitioner has sought quashment of FIR

No.68/2022 dated 01.02.2022 lodged in Police Station Sukher,

District Udaipur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR has

been lodged by the complainant essentially with a view to exert

undue pressure and harass him inasmuch as the physical

relationship (if any) were consensual.

3. He argued that even according to the averments made in the

FIR, the complainant had a prolonged physical relationship with

the petitioner.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-722/2022]

4. It was submitted that complainant is major in age whose

matrimony itself was disturbed for which her petition for divorce

is pending consideration.

5. It was argued that consensual physical relations have been

labelled as rape with oblique motive maybe as a result of sored or

strained relationship.

6. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of Coordinate Bench

of this Court dated 05.01.2021 rendered in case of Sachin Sukhla

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.)

No.2092/2019) and prayed that the FIR in question be quashed.

7. Mr. Deora, learned counsel for the complainant argued that

the petitioner had blackmailed the complainant made false

promise and hollow assurance that he would marry her in order

to deceive her. And as he betrayed or cheated, the consent which

the complainant had given for physical relationship, cannot be

treated to be free consent, as the same was obtained

fraudulently.

8. Heard.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the FIR and statement of the complainant recorded

under section 164 of Cr.P.C., this Court finds that the petitioner

and the complainant had prolong physical relationship.

10. A perusal of the complainant's statement under section 164

of Cr.P.C. shows that even the first physical relation was made

with consent and their relationship continued for a long time.

11. The allegation of rape levelled by the complainant against

the petitioner is clearly unfounded and unsustainable, inasmuch

as physical relationship on the assurance rather promise of

marriage too, has been held not amounting to rape.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-722/2022]

12. For reasons stated hereinabove and following the judgment

rendered in case of Sachin Sukhla (supra), the FIR No.68/2022

dated 01.02.2022 is quashed.

13. Consequence to follow.

14. Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 39-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)