Rajkumar vs State of M.P.

Subhash Kakade, J.—This revision under Section 397/ 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 17.04.14 passed by learned Special Judge, Dindori, District Dindori in Special Case No.6/14 framing the charges against the petitioner punishable under Section 376, 506 Part-II of IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that in PS-City Kotwali, Dindori a case has been registered as Crime No.19/14 against the petitioner and other co-accused and charge sheet was filed under Sections 376, 506 Part II, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. After committal proceeding, by the impugned order the aforesaid charges have been framed against the petitioner against which this petition has been filed.

Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has committed error in framing charge against the petitioner and has ignored the definition of rape which is defined under Section 375 of the IPC. The prosecutrix, who is major, herself has stated in the FIR that she has performed notarized marriage with the petitioner. Copy of the affidavit of notarized marriage performed by prosecutrix is filed as Annexure A/3. Counsel submits that prosecutrix was living with the accused of her own and if now petitioner is not ready to live with her then prosecutrix has other legal remedies, but criminal case would not be maintainable. On the aforesaid grounds, he prayed that the impugned order be quashed and petitioner be discharged.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this revision.

After perusing the documents filed with the petition, particularly the charge sheet prima facie well founded case is made out against the petitioner.

At this stage it is not required to go into the pros and cons of the prosecution evidence as required to discuss at the stage of passing of judgment by the trial Court on the probable defence of the petitioner that the major prosecutrix was consenting party or not.

If a full grown-up girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity, it is an act of promiscuity on her part. Her act is not induced by misconception of fact. Section 90 of the IPC cannot be called in aid in such a case to pardon the act of the girl and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the Court can be assured that from the very inception the accused never really intended to marry her. This assurance can be gathered when the prosecutrix will appear in witness box and she will be subjected for cross- examination.

In the above facts and circumstances, there is no need to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as defence available to the petitioner and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out nor could be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

It is a settled legal proposition that in a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceeding cannot be quashed � S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Another, .

Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 17.04.14 warranting interference by way of this Revision petition against framing of charge. The Revision is dismissed summarily.