SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shanker Goond vs State & Anr on 17 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2081 / 2017
Shanker Goond S/o Shri Ram Kishore, Aged About 33 Years, By
Caste Harijan, Resident of Harijan Basti, Masuriya, Jodhpur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

2. Smt. Roopa W/o Shri Bablu, Resident of Behind Pratap Nagar
Police Chowki, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur City West, Jodhpur.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Kuldeep Purohit.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
17/01/2018

By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner Shanker Goond has approached this Court seeking

quashing of the FIR No.0095/2017 registered against him at the

Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (West) for the offence under

Section 376 IPC at the instance of the respondent No.2 Smt. ‘R’.

Facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant

misc. petition are noted herein below:

The respondent No.2 lodged the above mentioned written

FIR at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (West) on

12.06.2017 alleging inter alia, that the petitioner, who was her

colleague at work, took her indecent photographs and started

blackmailing her with a demand for acceding into an illicit sexual
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-2081/2017]

relationship. On resistance shown by the complainant, the accused

threatened that he would upload the indecent photographs on the

internet. The complainant further alleged that the accused

misused these photographs and forced her to establish physical

relations with him under the threat of making them viral. She

alleged that her husband has also lodged an FIR against the

petitioner wherein, she gave a statement favouring the accused

because she was afraid of the threat given by the accused to her.

The petitioner took her into his own house and promised to marry

her but later on, she was abandoned and was living with her

mother for the last 4-5 months. The petitioner allegedly came to

her mother’s house and threatened that she would be killed if she

took any action against him. On the basis of these allegations, the

aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

During the course of investigation of the present FIR,

statement of the prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was recorded by the

I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which, she repeated the

allegations levelled in the FIR and alleged that the accused used to

pressurise her into establishing sexual relations under the threat

of making the indecent photographs viral. She alleged that on

16.08.2016, the accused forced her to elope with him. Fearing the

threats of the accused, she went with him to Nagaur. Thereafter,

the accused brought her back and both stayed together at some

unknown place where he used to assault her sexually. She resisted

saying that she was a married woman and that she did not love

him but the accused persisted with his threats and also told her

that even her husband would discord her. The accused also gave
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-2081/2017]

her an allurement that he would marry her. She admitted having

given the statements favouring the accused during investigation of

the FIR lodged at the instance of her husband against the

accused. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of

this misc. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of

the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken

thereunder.

The petitioner has placed on record of the petition, an

agreement dated 28.12.2016 indicating that he and the

complainant had agreed to lead a life of ‘Live-in-Relationship’ and

that the complainant had abandoned her husband. The reason for

doing so is indicated in the agreement that the husband Bablu

used to frequently quarrel with Smt. ‘R’ under intoxication and

thus, she found it impossible to continue her matrimonial

relationship with him.

Shri Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel representing the

petitioner urged that in view of the fact that while being examined

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation of the

earlier FIR No.391/2016 registered at the Police Station Pratap

Nagar at her husband’s instance, the prosecutrix, who is a major

married woman, categorically stated that she had eloped with the

petitioner of her own free will and was desirous of living with him

and that the relationship was consensual. Obviously the present

FIR is nothing but a second FIR on the same facts and has been

lodged with oblique motive. He thus implored the Court to

exercise its inherent powers for quashing the impugned FIR which,

as per him, tantamounted to a gross abuse of process of law.
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-2081/2017]

Shri Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri

Kuldeep Purohit, learned counsel representing the complainant

vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

counsel. However, they too were not in a position to dispute the

fact that the prosecutrix was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

during investigation of the earlier FIR No.291/2016 registered at

the instance of her husband and in the said statement, she

categorically stated of an amoral affair with the present petitioner

citing a reason that her husband used to harass her and thus, she

did not desire to continue her matrimonial relations with him.

Needless to say that the prosecutrix is a major married woman

having three children from her marriage with Bablu. The earlier

statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 30.08.2016. In such

statement, there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner

had snapped any indecent photographs of the complainant. The

present FIR came to be lodged on 12.06.2017. The allegations set

out in the present FIR that the complainant was being blackmailed

by the accused under the threat of uploading her indecent

photographs, is apparently and manifestly not a fact but a fiction.

In the present FIR, it is categorically mentioned that after keeping

her with himself for some time, Shankar Goond turned her out of

his home while resiling from the promise of marriage. She was

living with her mother for the last 4-5 months. Had there been an

iota of truth in the allegations of the prosecutrix then, she had

ample opportunities to immediately report the matter to the police

no sooner she had been turned out of the house by the accused.

In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-2081/2017]

the firm opinion that the relationship between the petitioner and

the complainant was totally consensual. Both of them are major

persons and there existed no such circumstance which could have

compelled the prosecutrix to indulge in the extramarital fling with

the petitioner unless she herself desired the same. The

subsequent theory set out by her in the highly belated FIR that

the accused blackmailed her under the threat of making her

indecent photographs viral is nothing but a figment of imagination

and a sheer concoction.

In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of

the firm opinion that allowing investigation of the impugned FIR to

be continued against the present petitioner would be nothing short

of a gross abuse of process of law.

Resultantly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is

hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.0095/2017 registered at

the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (West) and all

consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against

the present petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC are

hereby quashed.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Tikam/26

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh