HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.
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.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Kuldeep Purohit.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.