Harshit Chaplot @ Tappu vs State on 12 January, 2018

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1386 / 2015
Harshit Chaplot @ Tappu S/o Mohan Lal, by caste Chaplot, R/o
Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.


1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Akila Banu D/o Sabir Mohammad, by caste Mohammedan,
Resident of Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP.

Mr. Zafar Khan.

Date of Judgment: 12/01/2018

By way of this revision, the petitioner Harshit Chaplot @

Tappu has approached this Court for challenging the order dated

12.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.38/2015

(14/2015) whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the

petitioner for the offence under Section 376)1) IPC and the order

dated 24.09.2015 whereby the said charge was read over to him.

Shri Kaushal Gautam learned counsel representing the

petitioner vehemently urged that ex-facie, the material placed on

record by the investigation agency alongwith the charge-sheet is

not of such unimpeachable quality so as to justify the order

framing charge against the petitioner. He contended that the
(2 of 6)

prosecutrix Smt. ‘A’ was a major married woman. In the FIR as

well as in her statement recorded during investigation, she

admitted that she was already married to one Iqbal Khan and that

owing to her husband’s ill behaviour, she developed an

extramarital love affair with the present petitioner about 4 years

prior to lodging of the FIR which was presented to the

Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh on 09.02.2015. He further

urged that the case set up by the prosecutrix that the accused

petitioner procured sexual favours from her and exploted her by

extending a fraudulent allurement of marriage is totally

unbelievable because she was a married woman and thus, there

was no scope of her marrying the petitioner during her subsisting

marriage with Iqbal Khan. With these submissions, learned

counsel Shri Gautam implored the Court to set aside the

impugned orders as being grossly illegal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Zafar Khan,

learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently

opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.

They urged that the petitioner gave a patently false allurement of

marriage to the prosecutrix Smt. ‘A’ and thereby, fraudulently

induced her to establish physical relations with him. The promise

of marriage made by the petitioner to the prosecutrix was never

meant to be fulfilled. The prosecutrix fell into for the trap laid by

the accused and got her flourishing marriage with Iqbal Khan

terminated on 30.01.2015 by getting a divorce deed executed.

The petitioner, who was continuously exploiting the lady called her

to Chittorgarh Court on 03.02.2015 with a blatant by false
(3 of 6)

assurance that he would get the marriage documents executed. In

good faith, she went to the Chittorgarh Court and kept waiting for

the accused. The accused reached the court and asked her to buy

a stamp of Rs.100/-. A make believe marriage document was got

typed on the stamp paper and then the accused went away from

the court premises saying that he would return shortly but never

returned. It was thus contended that the intention of the accused

was fraudulent right from the inception and he was never desirous

of marrying the proecutrix. All the promises which were given by

the accused were fraudulent and were aimed at procuring undue

sexual favours from the lady. The accused never intended to stand

by his assurance and ditched the prosecutrix after calling her to

the court for preparing the marriage document. They thus

implored the Court to reject the revision.

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the

material available on record.

As per the admitted case set up by the proecutrix Smt. ‘A’

aged 27 years, she was married with Iqbal Khan about 12 years

prior to filing of the FIR and two children were born to her from

her wedlock with Iqbal. Inher statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that her marriage with Iqbal

was on the rocks and both used to quarrel frequently. As per her

own case, she came into contact with the petitioner about four

years prior to lodging of the FIR and relationship developed into

intimacy without any kindly allurement ever being offered by the

petitioner. She, as well as the petitioner continued to establish
(4 of 6)

voluntary carnal/ sexual relations for a prolonged period of about

four years. She also came into close contact with the petitioner’s

family members and used to exchange sundries with them. She

left her husband about 2 years ago and took up in a separate

residence. The petitioner, used to sleep over at the house of the

prosecutrix where both often indulged in voluntary physical

relations. She alleged that when she resisted the advances of the

accused, an assurance was given that he would accept her as his

wife. The petitioner allegedly advised the prosecutrix to divorce

her husband Iqbal on which, she got the divorce document

executed on 30.01.2015. But the accused resiled from his promise

and ditched her. On going through the said statement, it is

apparent that at no point of time, during the prolonged period of

four years prior to the lodging of the FIR, did the prosecutrix make

any aspersion regarding the accused having given her a false

promise/ allurement of marriage. She admitted that her marriage

with Iqbal was on the rocks. She came into contact and developed

intimacy with the petitioner and both used to indulge in carnal

relations frequently. She also became intimate with the

petitioner’s family members. Thus, no allurement or promise was

given by the petitioner during the said period of four years prior to

lodging of the FIR which could have induced or lured the

prosecutrix into establishing sexual relations with the petitioner

unless she herself craved the same. It is for the first time in the

month of January, 2015 that the prosecutrix alleged that she was

told by the petitioner to divorce her husband. The divorce

documents were prepared and executed on 30.01.2015. While
(5 of 6)

being examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix alleged

that she came into contact with Harshit about four years ago. Her

husband came to know of these activities and thus stopped

coming to Bhadesar and left the prosecutrix and went away to his

own village Vallabh Nagar. Thereafter, illicit liaison of the

prosecutrix with the petitioner started and continued in an unfazed

manner till the year 2015. The aspersion of the prosecutrix that

the petitioner asked her to divorce her husband so that both could

marry each other is palpably false because in the marriage

affidavit dated 03.02.2015 which the prosecutrix herself presented

to the I.O., it is clearly mentioned that “her husband had harassed

and humiliated her and had also stopped fulfilling his matrimonial

obligations and that, she had broken off all the ties with him for

the previous seven years. Thereafter, she came into contact with

Harshit who had taken good care of her and her children and had

also undertaken to provide for their subsistence. She put a

proposal of marriage to Harshit which he accepted.”

In view of the categoric assertions made by the prosecutrix

in her voluntarily drawn affidavit, it is apparent that the allegation

set out by her in the written report and her statements recorded

under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that it was the petitioner who

gave her a false allurement of marriage with the oblique motive of

getting sexual favours is palpably false and fabricated. The facts

available on record clearly indicate that the situation was totally

reverse and it seems to be the prosecutrix who entrapped the

petitioner in her charms. The entire material available on record

does not give rise to even a slender indication of guilt of the
(6 of 6)

accused for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC so as to justify

his prosecution for the same. Thus, this Court is of the firm

opinion that the trial court was totally unjustified in directing

framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence under

Section 376(1) IPC. The impugned orders dated 12.08.2015 and

24.09.2015 are grossly bad in the eye of law as well as on facts as

the same are not based on appropriate appreciation and

evaluation of the admitted factual aspects available on record and

hence the same are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby

allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.08.2015 and 24.09.2015

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh whereby charge was framed

against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC is

set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the offence.

Record be returned to the trial court.


tikam daiya/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *