Partly allowed

Mahendra v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2017CRLR/956/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to discharge the petitioner. Ruling that a claim of rape under false promise of marriage is unsustainable when sexual relations occurred during a subsisting valid marriage, the Court applied Prashant Bharati to quash the trial court order framing charges for rape, criminal intimidation, and voluntarily causing hurt.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was allowed. The impugned order framing charges dated 12.5.2017 was quashed and set aside. The accused petitioner was discharged from all offences.

Mahendra Vs State and Anr. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 956 / 2017

¶3

Mahendra Son of Shri Poonam Chand, By Caste Mehtar, Resident of Udaimandir, Harizan Basti, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur Metro.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

Smt. Sonu D/o Surya Prakash, By Caste Valmiki, Resident of Kalla Nagar, Harizan Basti, Udaipur, Police Station Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Mathur.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Bhati, P.P., Mr.K.C.Pancharia.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017

¶14

By way of this revision, the petitioner Mahendra has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 12.5.2017 passed by the learned ASJ (Woman Atrocities Act Cases), Jodhpur Metro in Sessions Case No.16/2017 whereby the trial court directed framing of charges against him for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N), 506 and 323 I.P.C.

¶15

Facts in brief:-

¶16

The respondent Smt.’S’ aged 22 years lodged a report against the petitioner at the Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur on 29.6.2016 alleging inter-alia that about 6 months ago, the accused petitioner seduced her with a false promise of marriage and after enticing her, she was made to stay as the wife of the

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CRLR-956/2017]

¶19

accused in a rented house. She was often beaten up. Her family members were threatened with dire consequences and in this manner, she was sexually exploited. She was prevented from talking to anybody. She could not even contact her parents. Because of the fear instilled in her mind by the accused, she silently suffered sexual exploitation at his hands. She was made to sign numerous blank papers and was also instigated to file false cases against her own family members. The accused used to bring other boys to the room and pressurized her to establish sexual relations with them. When she refused, Sanjay Dharu, brother of the petitioner and his mother used to beat her. Finally, the accused ditched her and left her outside the Woman’s Police Station. The petitioner’s family members did not allow her to come inside their house and threatened to immolate her if she tried to enter the house. They also made an attempt to sell her off, meanwhle, as a result of the sexual relations, she became pregnant from the accused, who did not desire the child. She somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the accused, but his mother Bhalu Devi managed to trap her and forcibly took her to the hospital and got her aborted. Her indecent video clips were recorded. Upon submission of this report, the Police made an inquiry from the complainant upon which she divulged that she was married to one Vijendra on 25.11.2015. On 4.1.2016 she eloped with Mahendra on which her husband lodged a Missing Persons Report at the Police Station Pratapnagar. She was questioned during the course of inquiry of the said missing report and stated that she had gone with Mahendra of her own free will.

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

[CRLR-956/2017]

¶22

Mahendra kept her at different places during the past six months and used to beat her up. About two months prior to lodging of the report, she was ditched and left outside the Women Police Station. Her maternal grandmother understood her plight and provided her shelter in her home. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix virtually repeated the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix alleged that she was knowing Mahendra for about past three years. She married Vijendra on 25.11.2015. She used to spend time with Mahendra and both freely and frequently indulged in carnal relations. Even after her marriage, Mahendra used to call her. She was threatened that her indecent videos would be made viral on internet. She categorically stated that the physical relations established between her and Mahendra before her marriage were consensual but after the marriage, Mahendra started blackmailing her into continuing the liason. Initially, she did not accede to the pressure exerted by Mahendra but finally, she broke down and went away with him. Mahendra also tried to kill her husband in an accident on 4.1.2016 on which, she became apprehensive for her own life. She went away with Mahendra in the morning at about 6 O’clock. She was taken to a friend’s house at Sushant City where they stayed together for 2-3 months. There, they indulged in frequent sexual trysts. Because of the unprotected sex, she conceived on which the accused gave her some tablets for abortion. Finally, the accused ditched her and turned her out of the house. Upon concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the

¶23

(4 of 5)

¶24

[CRLR-956/2017]

¶25

accused for the offences under Sections 376, 506 and 323 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge proceeded to frame charges against the accused petitioner for these very offences by the impugned order dated 12.5.2017 which is assailed in the instant revision.

¶26

I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the charge-sheet.

¶27

The prosecutrix who is a major married woman set up a clear case in the belated written F.I.R. that the accused gave her a false promise of marriage and established sexual relations with her under this false assurance. However, upon being examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that the sexual relations established between her and the accused before her marriage were consensual but later on, the accused used to blackmail her into having sex. Apparently, the said allegation is falsified from the story set up in the detailed F.I.R. in which an allegation was made regarding sexual favours taken by the accused under a false promise of marriage. Since the prosecutrix was married from before to Vijendra and as she established sexual relations with the accused during the subsisting marriage, apparently, the claim made by the prosecutrix that she was allured by the false promise of marriage given by the accused is totally baseless, false and fictitious. There was no possibility of her marriage with the accused during the subsistence of her valid marriage with Vijendra. Thus apparently, the allegation of rape under a false assertion of marriage cannot be sustained against the petitioner even if the case set up by the prosecutrix is

¶28

(5 of 5)

¶29

[CRLR-956/2017]

¶30

accepted as true on the face of the record. The factual situation of the case at hand is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Prashant Bharati Vs. State of NCT of

¶31

Delhi reported in (2013)9 SCC 293 . The learned trial Judge, whilst considering the aspect of charge, did not advert to the import of this specific legal bar whereby the case set up by the prosecutrix could not be sustained even for a moment. Since the principal allegation of the prosecutrix that she was threatened, coerced and pressurized by the accused into establishing sexual relations has been negated by this Court, ex-facie, charges for offences under Sections 506 and 323 I.P.C. also fail as a consequence thereof.

¶32

The revision thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 12.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Act Cases), Jodhpur Metro is hereby quashed and set aside as being grossly illegal. The accused petitioner is discharged from all the offences.

¶33

SANDEEP MEHTA

¶34

/tarun goyal/

Mahendra v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Harma Ram and Anr.

M/S Shree Plylem Vs Smt Kavita

Au Financiers India Ltd. Vs State and Anr.

State Vs Ram Chandra @ Ramu

Nanak Singh Vs State and Anr.

Smt.Mamta Vs State and Anr.