Trilok Chand Makhija S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7454 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6307/2019

Trilok Chand Makhija S/o Shri Bhojraj Makhija, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o House No.c-18, Jyoti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Mohan Path, Jaipur, Raj.

                                                                        ----Petitioner

                                          Versus

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2.       Saniya Verma Makhija W/o Shri Trilok Chand Makhija, Aged
         About 27 Years, R/o Flat No.202, Anchal Apartment, Jyoti
         Nagar,     Housing       Board,    Jyoti   Nagar,     Jaipur   South,    Raj.,
         Permanent      R/o       A-14,     Gurukripa      Society,     Jivan    Nagar,
         Lokhandwala Link Road, Mumbai, Amboli, Police Station,
         Barihan, Mumbai City, Maharashtra.

                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr. Raj Kishore Choudhary & Mr. Hemang Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav GA Cum AAG Mr. Majhar Hussain, Mr. Kanwar Pal S.

                                    Cheema & Mr. Sameer Khan


       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                          Order


Order Reserved on                          ::             07.11.2022
Order Pronounced on                        ::             24.11.2022

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing the FIR No.66/2019 registered at Police Station Jyoti

Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences u/s 376, 313 and 120B

IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

been wrongly implicated in this case. A bare reading of the FIR

does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant is a major

lady and having a criminal nature. She has lodged the present FIR

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-6307/2019]

to extort the money from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that petitioner's wife Smt. Geeta Makhija has

lodged a written complaint against the complainant u/s 384 and

388 IPC. After that, as a counter blast, complainant-respondent

had lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that petitioner is a rich man and he had engaged the

respondent in advertisement. For taking the money, respondent

wanted to implicate the petitioner in the false case. So, she had

lodged the present FIR on false and frivolous facts. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent had

travelled with the petitioner not only in India but also outside from

India in Nepal in August 2016 and Bangkok in September 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire expenses of

the trip was borne by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that complainant had made intimate

relations with the petitioner with her own wish and she also very

well knew that petitioner was a married person. Petitioner had not

given any false assurance for marriage. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that complainant had taken lakhs of rupees

from the petitioner by blackmailing him. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that as per the FIR, petitioner and complainant

were having in relation from 2014 and she had lodged the present

FIR after a lapse of 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that there is no evidence regarding abortion because no

evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever relation made

between them are consensual. So, offence of rape is not made

out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the

investigation, Investigating Officer has also collected the call

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-6307/2019]

details as well as bills of the hotels etc. which clearly show that

respondent was consented party in the affair. So, FIR lodged

against the petitioner be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments:- (1) Pramod Surya Bhan Pawar vs. State of

Maharashtra & anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608; (2)

Shivshankar Alias Shiva vs. State of Karnataka & anr. (2019) 18

SCC 204; (3) Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10

SCC 108; (4) X vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in CRLA

No.613/2020 decided on 15.12.2020; (5) Baldev Gora vs. State of

Raj. & anr. 2018 (3) RLW 2417 (Raj.).

Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public

Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after the

investigation, Investigating Officer had found proved the offences

u/s 376 & 313 IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

respondent submits that present FIR lodged by respondent is not

a counter blast because Investigating Officer had filed negative

final report in FIR filed by the wife of the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the respondent also submitted that no protest petition

was filed by wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submits that there is no locus to file the said FIR

by Smt. Geeta Makhija. Learned counsel for the respondent also

submits that from the inception, petitioner cheated the respondent

and promised to marry her. So, consent obtained by the petitioner

on account of marriage. So, as per the FIR, offences u/s 376 &

313 IPC are found proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel

for the respondent also submits that during the investigation,

evidence regarding abortion was not collected because concerned

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-6307/2019]

hospital destroyed the documents regarding abortion. Learned

counsel for the respondent also submits that by invoking section

482 Cr.P.C. mini trial cannot be done at this stage. Defences raised

by the petitioner can be taken into consideration at the time of

trial. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as

well as learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that respondent is a major lady

and she had gone with the petitioner at various places not only in

India but also abroad. It is also admitted position that as per the

FIR, petitioner had established physical relation with her in the

year 2015 but she had lodged the present FIR in the year 2019

after lapse of more than 4 years. It is also admitted position that

complainant very well knew that petitioner was a married person

and she had established the physical relation with him. So, it

cannot be said that sexual relation between them on the false

promise of marriage. Investigating Officer during the investigation

had collected the documents regarding payment of tour expenses

and etc. By these material and evidences, it is well established

that respondent was consented party and physical relations were

made by them on account of her consent. Case laws cited by

learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the case of the

petitioner. So, allow the proceedings against the petitioner would

be an abuse of process of law. So, present petition deserves to be

allowed.

Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the

impugned FIR No.66/2019 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar,

Jaipur City (South) for the offences u/s 376, 313 and 120B IPC

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-6307/2019]

and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the said FIR, is

hereby quashed and set aside.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 49.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)