Hari Krishna vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By way of filing instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner is seeking for the following relief :

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No.184/2017 Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

The respondent no.2 lodged a complaint on 24.4.2017 in which she alleged of having affair with the petitioner and also submitted that there was a promise to marry from the side of petitioner but now petitioner is refusing to marry her and was going to marry another girl. The allegations were subsequently withdrawn by the respondent no.2.

The respondent no.2 present in Court submits that she does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner as it was under wrong impression that she lodged the FIR. She further requested that the proceedings of the aforesaid FIR may be dropped.

Counsel for the respondent no.2 drew attention of this Court to earlier order passed on 04.4.2018 wherein the prosecutrix while in Court herself stated that she does not want to press the charges against the petitioner. The order dated 04.4.2018 reads as follows :-

" This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.184/2017 of Police Station Hiran Magari, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who has alleged that the petitioner has sexually abused her and raped her on the promise of marriage.

During the course of investigation, the police has recorded the statement of respondent No.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concern Magistrate, wherein the respondent No.2 has reiterated the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition while contending that he has falsely been implicated in this case and the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 now also does not want to continue the criminal case, lodged against the petitioner, and on this ground also the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 has put in appearance through her counsel and today, she is present in person before this Court and has stated that she does not want to press the allegation levelled in the impugned FIR, however, even on asking she has not disclosed that why she is not interested in continuing the investigation of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the factual report dated 18.01.2018, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were residing together for quite some time as per their own will and the petitioner has sexually assaulted the respondent No.2 while promising that he will marry her and, therefore, offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner as per the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2013(9) SCC 293 and stated that in the above referred cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings while observing that the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed only on the basis of statement of complainant/prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. though there is no other evidence available on record to substantiate the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the specific stand of the respondent No.2 that she is not pressing the charges against the petitioner, it is in the fitness of the things that the respondent No.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the impugned FIR, on or before 23.04.2018 and give her statement. It is directed that the Investigating Officer shall take into consideration the statement of respondent No.2 and thereafter shall submit the factual report before this Court on the next date of hearing. Put up on 26.04.2018.

Interim order, if any, to continue till next date."

Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2, thus, jointly pray that the FIR impugned be quashed on account of respondent no.2 not wanting to carry on with the prosecution.

Learned Public Prosecutor, however, stated that statement of prosecutrix has already been recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., wherein she stated that petitioner and respondent no.2 resided together for quite some time as per her own will and the petitioner sexually assaulted respondent no.2 under a promise to marry her, thus, offence under Section 376 IPC is made out.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing record, this Court finds that the precedent law laid down Hon`ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2013(9) SCC 293 by this Court in Vijay Pal Singh are attracted. Further this Court finds the respondent no.2 herself appeared before this Court. This Court has recorded her consistent stand that she does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner and does not wish to take any stand against the petitioner. Thus, it is fit case wherein this Court needs to interfere. The basic allegation of rape by promise to marry reflect consensual sex and cannot be seen through the prism of law like 376 IPC. Moreover, the allegation itself stands withdrawn by the private respondent.

Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.184/2017 of P.S. Hiran Magri, District Udaipur is quashed and set aside.