Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jai Devre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36855
1 MCRC-48836-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48836 of 2024
JAI DEVRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mayank Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashing
FIR bearing Crime No.875/2022 registered against him at Police Station Kotwali
Dhar, District Dhar for offences punishable under Sections 365, 341, 376, 506 of
the IPC and all consequential further proceedings.
2. As per the prosecution, on 23.11.2022, a report was lodged by the
prosecutrix to the effect that since prior to 2018 she was living at Queens Park
Colony, Dhar. Nearby the petitioner/accused used to live. They came to know
each other. After some time, the petitioner told her that he likes her and wants to
marry her. She accepted after about two months. She also used to like him. Both
wanted to get married and were also having physical relationship. In 2020 the
petitioner got married somewhere else after which she completely broke off her
relationship with him. Thereafter she also got married after which the petitioner
started troubling her. He used to chase her, beat her and threaten her with life. He
used to call her from various mobile numbers. She had lodged a report on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 03-01-2025
13:21:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36855
2 MCRC-48836-2024
04.09.2022 with Police Station Dhar against the petitioner after which also he
continued to harass her and used to come to Bhoj hospital in Dhar to meet her.
On 05.10.2022, at about 5.30 p.m. when she was coming back from the hospital
then near Savriya market the petitioner met her and said that he wants to talk to
her. He threatened her to take back her report. He showed her some private videos
of them in his mobile. He threatened her and took her to Nagchandreshwar
Mandir, Dhar stating that he wants to talk to her. Instead he beat her. When the
persons nearby made inquiries, he said that they are husband and wife. He then
forcibly took her near a small lake and committed rape upon her. He pressed her
mouth so that she could not scream. Thereafter he threatened her with a knife. He
then forced her to drop him to the market. Even thereafter he continued to harass
her for having physical relationship with him. Being fed up with his actions the
complaint is being lodged by her.
3. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix FIR was registered
against the petitioner and investigation was commenced during the course of
which statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded and certain
relevant documents have been collected.
4. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that
the entire allegations as levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner are false
and fabricated. Even if they are taken to be true at their face value no offence can
be said to have been committed by the petitioner. It was a case of love
relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix which has now been given
the colour of a criminal case by her only to exert pressure upon him and with
mala fide intention. It is not a case of commission of rape on false pretext of
marriage. The prosecutrix has herself stated that she was in love with the
petitioner and both of them wanted to get married and that they had physical
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 03-01-2025
13:21:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36855
3 MCRC-48836-2024
relationship with consent of each other. Both of them are now married elsewhere
in their lives and there is no plausible reason for the prosecutrix to have lodged
the report against him. There is no evidence available on record to show
commission of any offence by the petitioner. The prosecutrix is attempting to
blackmail the petitioner. It is hence submitted that the proceedings against the
petitioner being malicious deserve to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State has submitted that
there is sufficient evidence available on record to proceed with against the
petitioner and it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out in view of
which the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case
diary.
7. Though the prosecutrix has stated that initially she was in love with the
petitioner and both of them wanted to get married and had physical relationship
with consent of each other, but that is not the only allegation levelled by her. She
has further stated that the petitioner had got married after which she had broken
all relations with him. Thereafter she had also got married. It is thereafter that the
petitioner started harassing her by meeting her, threatening her, abusing her and
calling on her phone from various other numbers. There is a specific allegation
levelled by the prosecutrix to the effect that on 05.10.2022 the petitioner had
forcibly taken her near a lake and had committed rape upon her and had also
threatened her with a knife. She has narrated in detail the incident as it took place
when the petitioner met her in the market and took her to a temple stating that he
only wants to talk to her but thereafter threatened her and took her to the lake and
committed rape upon her. All these acts are alleged to have been committed by
the petitioner forcibly.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 03-01-2025
13:21:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36855
4 MCRC-48836-2024
8. Thus, though it may be a case of initial love relationship between the
petitioner and the prosecutrix but that was only for a particular period of time.
The allegation of the prosecutrix is not as regards commission of rape by the
petitioner upon her on the false pretext of marriage. The allegation is specifically
in respect to an incident occurred on 05.10.2018 which is four years after
commencement of their initial relationship. Both the narrations are distinct and
are not in continuation. The incident which is alleged to have taken place on
05.10.2022 is not co-related to the love relationship which the petitioner and the
prosecutrix were having earlier. Even if the petitioner did not commit rape upon
the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage, then also the incident dated
05.10.2022 is a clear allegation by the prosecutrix of commission of rape by the
petitioner who is already married.
9. It may also be noted that earlier also on 04.09.2022 a report had been
lodged by the prosecutrix against the petitioner with Police Station Kotwali,
District Dhar in respect of his alleged acts. It is thereafter on 05.10.2022 that he
is alleged to have committed rape upon her by threatening her. The contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a simple case of love relationship
and cannot be said to be a case of commission of rape on false pretext of marriage
is not liable to be accepted. In such circumstances, the judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar V/s. State of
Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 327 and various other judgments on similar lines are
not helpful to the petitioner in any manner.
10. Thus in view of the aforesaid it is apparent that there is sufficient
prima facie material available on record to proceed with against the petitioner and
it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out against him. The petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 03-01-2025
13:21:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36855
5 MCRC-48836-2024
is hence found to be devoid of merits and is consequently dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 03-01-2025
13:21:41