THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-02-2018
Shri Ashish Vyas with Shri Rajesh Vishwakarma, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.K. Mishra, learned G.A for the respondent No. 1/State.
The petitioner- Rahul is the husband of the respondent No. 2-
Rashmi Rajput. The petitioner preferred this revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C assailing the order dated
12.05.2017 passed by 1st A.S.J, Sagar in Sessions Case No. 03/2017,
wherein charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence
under Section 376, 506 (II) of I.P.C.
As per the F.I.R dated 04.12.2016 lodged at Civil Line, Sagar,
the prosecutrix has alleged that she was acquainted with the petitioner,
for they were together in a coaching class. They developed friendship
and exchanged notes and books. On 27.08.2016 with the pretext that it
was his birthday, she was taken to Satkar Foods Civil Line. She
alleges that she was administered a tranquilizer in her cold drink.
When she suffered headache, she was taken to the house of the
petitioner. When she regained consciousness, she was found herself at
the petitioner’s house and she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The
accused/petitioner had prepared a video and also taken certain
photographs and threatened the prosecutrix not to inform anyone about
the incident and if she discloses anything to anyone, he will make the
video and photographs public, through the social media so that she and
her family members will be defamed. He also threatened of her life.
Because of these photographs and video, she was subjected to mental
and physical harassment.
On this report, investigation was made and charge sheet has
been filed. After committal of the case, charges have been framed
against the petitioner.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. The petitioner has filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 22.11.2016.
Subsequent thereto, the prosecutrix filed the reply on 12.04.2017. She
lodged the report on 04.12.2016.
It is also claimed that prior to the institution of the application
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a notice was issued on
12.11.2016 to the prosecutrix and her family members stating that the
prosecutrix was kept in wrongful confinement by her family members.
Whereas the prosecutrix was the married wife of the petitioner.
It is claimed that because of the civil suit, a defence was chalked
out and a concocted story in the same line of the reply dated
04.12.2017 was filed. It is contended that no video or photograph has
been seized in the criminal case. It is only a false case. Therefore, the
same is liable to be quashed.
Learned G.A for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the
contentions and submits that the petitioner administered some
intoxicant in her drinks and the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual
intercourse. It is also claimed that the documents of notice etc. are not
part of the charge sheet. Therefore, it cannot be read at this stage.
It is also contended that the prosecutrix in her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C has also made a definite statement about the
petitioner administering intoxicant in her drinks and committing
sexual assault and video graphing and taking her photographs. On the
basis of these video and photographs, she was subjected to blackmail.
The other witnesses including Rahul Singh son of Ramesh Sing, Rohit
Singh, Chanda Singh, Jitendra Singh also have stated against the
On behalf of the petitioner/accused, it is vehemently argued that
the documents filed by the petitioner are relevant documents and
which have definite bearing on the case. The documents are the
materials which would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution
version is totally absurd or preposterous and the same can be taken
into consideration at the time of framing of charge or taking
cognizance. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the case of
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar decided by the Hon’ble
Apex Court on 3rd October, 2008. He also placed reliance on the
case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC
568 and submitted that to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or
to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in the
case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others,
1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, the Court within the parameters at the time
of framing of charge may consider the material produced by the
The petitioner/accused claimed that the prosecutrix is his legally
wedded wife but no such documents have been filed to support this
averment. The application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and the notice issued to the respondent does not in itself
demonstrate that the prosecutrix is the legally wedded wife of the
petitioner/accused. It would not be exaggeration to mention that the
prosecutrix has clearly and unambiguously denied the factum of
marriage. In her reply under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act also,
she reiterates that she was administered intoxicant in her drink and,
subsequently, subjected to sexual intercourse. The accused had video
graphed and had taken certain photographs on the basis of which she
was blackmail to have repeated the offence several times.
So far as the question regarding the seizure of the video and the
photographs are concerned, the same has not been recovered from the
Otherwise also if the said photographs and video recordings are
available with the petitioner/accused, the same could not be recovered,
does not indicate that the petitioner has not committed the offence.
The averments made in the F.I.R and complaint and,
subsequently, in the statements under Section 161 and 164 of the
Cr.P.C, disclose prima facie offence under Section 376.
This Court would not embark upon an inquiry whether
allegations in the F.I.R and the charge sheet are reliable or not, and
thereupon render a definite finding about the truthfulness or veracity
of the allegations. These matters can be examined only by the trial
Court after the entire material is produced before it on a thorough
investigation and evidence is led.
At the time of framing of charge the Court has to see whether
the material brought on record would reasonably connect the accused
with the crime. No more is required to be inquired into in this regard.
In this regard the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Mohammed
Khalid, AIR 1995 SC 785 can be referred.
The petitioner’s version that he is married with the prosecutrix is
to be proved before the trial Court. Merely asserting the same at this
stage would not help the defence. At this stage, the prima facie case
has to be seen. The question whether the charges have been proved or
not can be determined only after the evidence is recorded.
This petition is, therefore, sans merit and is dismissed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
Digitally signed by AWINASH
Date: 2018.02.09 11:46:49 +05’30’