Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1214 of 2021 Shivkumar Sahu S/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Gidhouri- Bus Stand, Behind Petrol Pump, Police Station- Gidhouri, Tundra District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Gidhouri - Tundra Civil And Revenue District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 27-09-2024) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
as such, the allegation levelled against the petitioner prima facie itself appears to be false and fabricated. The allegation of rape has been levelled against the petitioner only when he refused to marry the respondent No. 2 and not before that. Even on the date of lodging of the FIR, she was a married lady and her marriage was not dissolved by any decree of divorce and this fact was not brought to the notice of the police 6 authorities. The respondent No. 2 is a mature lady and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. 11. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that firstly, the respondent No. 2 made an attempt to lodge an FIR at Kota, District Bilaspur but the same was registered only after seven months and transferred to Police Station, Gidhouri, District Balodabazar and thereafter the matter was investigated. There has been a delay of about 1 year and two months in lodging the FIR for which no explanation has been offered by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has further not been able to demonstrate that the petitioner was already aware of her marital status and still he made relationship with her and as such and lured to marry her, we are of the considered opinion that this Court should exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR, charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings as the attempt of the respondent No. 2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the respondent No. 2 had given her consent for sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape. We are further in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases cited (supra). 12. As a result, the FIR bearing Crime No. 168/2020, registered at Police Station, Gidhouri, District Balodabazar, for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the charge sheet bearing No. 95/2021, dated 19.08.2021 and the Sessions Case No. 73/2021 pending in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Balodabazar, so far it relates to the petitioner, stands quashed. Consequently, this petition stands allowed. 7 13. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.25 18:55:24 +0530
Arguments
: Mr. Satya Prakash Verma and Ms. Ritika For Respondent No. 1/State For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer : In Person Verma, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as the respondent No. 2, in person. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks quashing of the First 2 Information Report bearing Crime No. 0168/2020, registered at Police Station, Gidhouri, District Baloda Bazar, on 24.07.2020 , for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as also the charge sheet dated 19.08.2021 and the consequential criminal proceedings being Sessions Case No. 73/2021, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR by the respondent No. 2, who is a resident of village Dongripara, Police Station, Kota, District Bilaspur, alleging that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazr, where on 02.09.2020, the respondent No. 2 was examined and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Balodabazar where Sessions Trial No. 73/2021 was registered. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 07.09.2021 has framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376(ii)(n) of the IPC. 4. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is an Army personnel, had earlier filed a petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the order framing charges being Cr.R. No. 657/2021 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition vide order dated 26.10.2021. 5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that from perusal of the FIR itself, it is evident that the entire story presented by the respondent No. 2 is nothing but an attempt to anyhow falsely implicate the petitioner in a false case. The respondent No. 2 had introduced herself to be an unmarried girl whereas in fact, she was a married lady and as such, it is the petitioner who has been cheated by the respondent No. 2. The 3 respondent No. 2 is the wife of one Raja Sahu. The respondent No. 2 had given a complaint in the ofÏce of the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur wherein she had alleged that the the petitioner had made sexual relationship with her for three – four months on the pretext of marriage. According to the respondent No. 2, she became acquainted with the petitioner when she met her at Railway Station, Kota and they exchanged their mobile numbers. After being acquainted with each other, she was called by the petitioner in order to talk regarding their marriage, to his village Gidhauri where she stayed for two days. She was introduced to the parents of the petitioner and promised to marry her and there also, they both made physical relationship. After two days, when she returned home, the petitioner made various excuses and thereafter broke the relationship and threatened her. 6. Mr. Verma submits that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that in the FIR also, she stated that some people had come to see the respondent No. 2 for marriage purpose and this is totally false as she was already married and why would some person come to see her knowing that she was already married. When the petitioner came to know that she was already married, the petitioner simply stopped talking to her and broke all his relationship and this conduct of the petitioner made the respondent No. 2 to lodge a false report of rape. Above all, the FIR was lodged after a long delay of 1 year and two months for which no explanation has been offered. The respondent No. 2 is an educated major lady and knew the consequences. The respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on 06.01.2021 which was later withdrawn by the respondent No.2 on 25.02.2021. In fact, it is the petitioner who has been cheated by the respondent No. 2 and as such, he prays that the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential proceedings may be quashed. In support of his 4 contentions, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. & Another {2021 (3) CCSC 1285 (SC)}, Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another {Cr.A. No. 1231/2022, decided on 12.08.2022}, Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) {2023 (2) CGLJ 313 (SC)}, XXXX v. State of M.P. & Another {2024 (2) CCSC 1124 SC}, wherein identical facts and issue were involved. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that when the FIR was lodged, prima facie cognizable offence was made out and as such, investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was filed. The learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet and now it is for the learned trial Court concerned to proceed in accordance with law. 8. The respondent No. 2, appearing in person submits that the petitioner has lured her and made physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and now the petitioner has denied to marry her and as such, the learned trial Court was fully justified in taking cognizance of the matter. She submits that she was married to one Raja Sahu on 17.04.2018 but after her wedlock, her husband started torturing her both physically and mentally and their relationship started deteriorating. In the meanwhile, she came in contact with the petitioner and they both started liking each other and came into relationship. Both agreed to get married and in fact the petitioner himself asked her to take divorce from her husband so that they can get married upon which the respondent No. 2 filed divorce petition before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur but later on, the petitioner denied to marry her and as such, she was constrained to lodge the FIR. 9. The petitioner had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail being M.Cr.C.(A) No. 239/2021 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge 5 of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2021. Thereafter, a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022, granted an interim stay of the proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 73/2021 pending before the Sessions Court (FTC) Balodabazar, which has continued till date. 10. On a specific query being made by this Court to the respondent No. 2, appearing in person, as to whether she had informed the petitioner that she was already married, the respondent No. 2 submits that she had already disclosed her marital status to the petitioner which is evident from the whatsapp chats between them. According to the respondent No. 2 herself, she alongwith her husband Raja Sahu filed an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce on mutual basis which has been allowed vide judgment dated 19.11.2021. The marriage of the respondent No. 2 took place on 17.04.2013 and even as per the respondent No. 2 herself, she came in contact with the petitioner only in the month of May, 2019 when her she had not even filed her divorce petition. Had this fact been in the knowledge of the petitioner, he would have never consented for any sort of relationship. The argument that the respondent No. 2 had informed the petitioner about her marital status through whatsapp is noticed to be rejected as the said whatsapp chats were neither presented at the time of lodging of the FIR nor is the part of the charge sheet filed before the learned trial Court. The petitioner being an Army personnel, could not have married or promise to marry any lady who was already married and