CASE TITLE
RAGHAVJI VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DATE OF ORDER
14TH JUNE 2023
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR.SANJAY DWIVEDI
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 377,506 and 304 of IPC.
- The petitioner functioned as a State Finance Minister under Government of MP from 2003 to 2013. The respondent no.2 who filed the complaint against the petitioner was a homeless and was introduced by one of the employees to the petitioner.
- Petitioner allowed him to stay in his bungalow and also helped him getting a job of accountant in a private company. The complainant stayed in the bungalow till 25.05.2013.
- On 07.07.2013, the respondent no.2 made a written complaint alleging that the petitioner has been doing unnatural sex with him in lieu of getting him employed.
- The complainant averted that the petitioner threatened him for not disclosing the matter to anybody otherwise he will have pay serious consequences and even loose his job.
- The police initiated the probe, recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed charge sheet on 03.05.2014.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits to quash the FIR because the intent behind the complaint is just to defame the petitioner.
- It was contended that nowhere it is mentioned that the act of unnatural sex took place without consent of the complainant which makes it clear that he never opposed the act.
- The counsel argues that the complainant is a literate person and major who stayed for three years in petitioner’s bungalow but never complaint or opposed the unnatural act which makes it clear that the complainant had lodged the FIR at the instance of political rivals of the petitioner.
- The counsel submitted that the complainant had full freedom of going in and out from the bungalow but he never attempted to take any action or move away from the petitioner during three years of his stay. From the FIR, it is clear that the complainant was a consenting party and therefore no case is made under Section 377 of IPC.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is nothing in the FIR which needs to be quashed and there is a clear case of section 377.
- It was submitted that it is inferred from the written statement of the petitioner that the facts are contrary and without any substance.
- The learned counsel submitted that the statements of witnesses have been recorded and at this stage it is not proper to interfere in the matter.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The court allowed the petition on the ground that there is no finding to establish a case under Section 377 of IPC as because the case is made out of consent. Thereby the FIR was quashed.
- Court observed that in order to establish a case under Section 377 it is important that the act of unnatural sex that took place between two adults is without consent. But in the present case, it is clear that the complainant was a consenting party to the acts and thus court concluded that petitioner was not liable for punishment.
- Court observed that as per the facts of the case and the settled position of law it is clear that the FIR was lodged with ill-motive to hamper the image of the petitioner who holds an important position of MP.
- Court referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to interpret the power of high court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was held that if High Court observes that the allegations made in the complaint are manifestly malafide and/or the proceedings are malafidely initiated then the High Court under the said section can quash the FIR.
- Court, however, directed that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C must be used sparingly, carefully and with caution.
CONCLUSION
The court rightly interpreted Section 377 of IPC and made it clear that no one has any business into the personal intimate matters of an individual. Every individual has the liberty to exercise his or his choice of sexual orientation. Since in the present case, the parties were of sound mind and major as well as consented to the sexual acts between them therefore no proceedings is to further take place. Court concluded that no case of unnatural offence is made in this case.
