Ravi Kumar S/O Ramveer vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1428 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001164]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4670/2022

1.       Ravi Kumar S/o Ramveer, R/o Bhavanpura Jaghina,
         Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur.
2.       Sunil S/o Ramveer, R/o Bhavanpura Jaghina, Udhyog
         Nagar, Bharatpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.       Victim, D/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma R/o Gandhi Seva
         Sadan, Lalbag, Bayana, District Bharatpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP Mr. Abhinav Gupta Mr. Ayush Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 27/01/2023 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/02/2023

1. The petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No.

417/2022 registered with Bayana Police Station District Bharatpur

for offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC at the behest of

respondent No.2.

The challenge is on the ground that the FIR suffers from

malicious prosecution to wreck vengeance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the two

petitioners are full brothers. Petitioner No.1, Ravi Kumar was in

love with respondent No.2, both eloped on 16.2.2022. On

17.2.2022, both entered into marriage and on 17.2.2022 itself,

[2023/RJJP/001164] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4670/2022]

the marriage got registered. Smt. Asha Kiran Sharma, mother of

respondent No.2, got FIR No. 81/2022 registered on 17.2.2022

with Kotwali Police Station District Bharatpur for offences under

Section 363 and 366 IPC alleging therein that the petitioners and

others have allegedly kidnapped respondent No.2. Respondent

No.2 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and her statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.2.2022. In that

statement she stated that "she is aged above 19 years. She loved

petitioner Ravi Kumar, therefore, she had voluntarily left her house

to marry with Ravi Kumar. Ravi Kumar had neither induced her

nor threatened her to leave her house. In fact Respondent No. 2

on the mobile phone of her Bhabhi had called Ravi Kumar. She

further stated that both have married in Ghaziabad. Ravi Kumar

has not committed any offence against her. Since both are

husband and wife, Respondent No.2 wants to be with Ravi Kumar."

3. Considering the statement of the victim under Section 164

Cr.P.C., the police submitted negative report after investigation of

FIR No. 81/2022. The negative report was accepted by the

Magistrate vide order dated 29.4.2022 recording that even the

complainant has agreed for acceptance of the final report and

closure of the case. A copy of the order is at Annexure-8. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further contends that the father of the

victim was so annoyed with the aforesaid conduct of the victim,

who was a major girl born on 26.12.2002, that the father got a

press notice published in a daily newspaper declaring that

Respondent No.2 aged about 19 years is not having good

behaviour with the family. She does not obey the family. She had

[2023/RJJP/001164] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4670/2022]

fallen in wrong company. In spite of brain wash given to her, she is

adamant on her stand. Therefore, the father declared that he

debars respondent No.2 from his entire movable and immovable

properties and further notified that he had no concern with

respondent No.2 nor the family would be responsible for any act of

respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

after marriage, in the Aadahar Card, the name of petitioner Ravi

Kumar was recorded as the husband of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in one go,

all of a sudden, respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR No.

417/2022 on 8.5.2022 at Bayana Police Station District Bharatpur

alleging that the petitioners had induced her to leave her house

and go to Ghaziabad and Meerut and she accompanied the

petitioner. The petitioner forcibly got her signatures on different

papers by threatening that if she would not sign the papers, her

parents would be murdered. At the time of leaving the house,

respondent No.2 had taken Rs. 50,000/- from her house which

was also snatched by the petitioners. Allegation is that Ravi

Kumar established physical relations with her and wanted to sale

her, petitioner No.2 also wanted to have physical relations with

her. Learned counsel contends that the background of the

allegation would make it crystal clear that due to breakup of the

relation between the two for the reasons known to respondent

No.2, false FIR has been lodged just to harass the petitioners, in

fact it was a consensual act of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that in the

reply, respondent No.2 has categorically stated that her signatures

[2023/RJJP/001164] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4670/2022]

at the time of marriage or registration of marriage was taken by

putting her in fear of death of parents. Petitioners had asked

respondent No.2 to give favourable statement while her statement

was being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in FIR No. 81/2022.

Respondent No.2 has stated in her reply that the petitioner used

to follow her when she was studying in B.Sc. On numerous

occasions, the petitioner talked to respondent No.2. On

16.2.2022, when respondent No.2 came out of her hose to throw

garbage, the petitioners who were standing outside the house

asked her to come out of the house in the wee hours of night,

otherwise, her parents would be killed. Respondent No.2 left her

house on the same night. Learned counsel for the respondent

further contends that if FIR discloses commission of a cognizable

offence of heinous nature, it should be allowed to be investigated

according to law and in the view of well settled principles, the FIR

need not be quashed only for some plausible otherwise material.

6. Now, the question for consideration is whether in the

background of the FIR, it can be said that the impugned FIR was

lodged with malicious intention to wreck vengeance and is just an

attempt to abuse the process of law.

7. The record would reveal that the impugned FIR was lodged

only after closure of the first FIR and press notice of the father of

respondent No.2 against respondent No.2. The conduct of

respondent No.2 reveals that she was infact a consenting party, as

nowhere before the impugned FIR she made any protest or

complaint of her different acts including movement with the

petitioners without any protest or opposition. The conduct of the

[2023/RJJP/001164] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4670/2022]

petitioners in first entering into a marriage and getting the

marriage registered cannot be alleged that the act of the

petitioners specially petitioner No.1 was of a rapist rather, the

conduct of the parties would show that respondent No.2 was in a

consensual relationship with the petitioner. If she has denied her

stand subsequently, she cannot be allowed to abuse the process of

law by unnecessarily and mercilessly harassing the petitioner in a

criminal case.

8. In Raju & ors. vs. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 15

SCC 133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that it cannot be lost

sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humility to the

victim but at the same time, false allegation of rape can cause

equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well.

The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false

implication.

9. Since respondent No.2 had consented to go with the

petitioners with active understanding of the circumstances of the

action and consequences of the proposed act, she had sufficient

opportunity to disclose, the inducement or threat posed by the

petitioners, to her family members but she kept everything hidden

rather left the house along with Rs. 50,000/- of the family. When

an adult makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various

alternative actions (or inaction) as well as various possible

consequences flowing from such action or inaction, she admittedly

consents to such action. Reference may be made to Pramod

Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9

SCC 608.

[2023/RJJP/001164] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4670/2022]

10. Considering the background of FIR and previous

development of the matter as noticed above, the continuance of

impugned FIR would lead to miscarriage of justice and amount to

allowing abuse of the process of law, hence the impugned FIR and

all the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and this

petition is allowed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/54

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)