Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Advocate Booked For Client's Rape
The Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against an Advocate for allegedly misusing his professional relationship with a client and committing rape on her.In doing so, the Court opined that it cannot be said that the consent of prosecutrix was free consent, if the applicant has misused his position. The Court also said that prosecutrix statement...
The Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against an Advocate for allegedly misusing his professional relationship with a client and committing rape on her.
In doing so, the Court opined that it cannot be said that the consent of prosecutrix was free consent, if the applicant has misused his position. The Court also said that prosecutrix statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, in which she denied the allegation, cannot be given preference over FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.
A single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “The applicant is an Advocate by profession and was representing respondent No.2. If applicant has misused his position & committed rape on the prosecutrix, who was his client, then it cannot be said that consent of prosecutrix was free consent…Considering the fact that applicant, who is an Advocate by profession, has allegedly misused his professional relationship with the prosecutrix and committed rape on her by extending threats that he would otherwise ensure that the case is lost by her, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting quashment of FIR or the criminal prosecution.”
The present petition was filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR registered under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant is an Advocate by profession.
In the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, it was alleged that the applicant who was representing the prosecutrix in her divorce case came to her house informed her that the pending divorce case was baseless, but still he would ensure that the case is won by her, but for that she would be required to execute every instruction of the applicant. Thereafter, applicant had physical relationship with her and threatened her that if she informs anybody, then he would defame her in society and, as a result, the future of prosecutrix and her children would be destroyed. The prosecutrix also claimed that she had already paid entire fees to the applicant. However, taking advantage of her precarious condition, applicant raped her on multiple occasions which led to the registration of FIR.
The counsel for applicant submitted that in the statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, she did not support the allegations of rape and, instead, alleged that a dispute had arisen between her and the applicant on the question of Advocate's fee. It was further alleged that applicant had not raped her but had merely given threat with regard to his fees. Thus, the counsel for applicant submitted that in view of the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of CrPC, it is clear that applicant has been falsely implicated. Even otherwise, it was evident that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
The Court noted that respondent no. 2/Prosecutrix is a married woman and a divorce case is pending between her and her husband wherein the applicant was representing her and had assured her that the case is won by her, and accordingly, on that pretext, he committed rape on her on multiple occasions. The Court also noted that it is specifically alleged by respondent No. 2 that her consent was taken by coercion and under pressure.
The Court further noted that the case filed by prosecutrix for grant of divorce from her husband was pending at the relevant time.
Thus, the Court opined that if the applicant has misused his position and committed rape on the prosecutrix, who was his client, then it cannot be said that consent of prosecutrix was free consent.
With regard to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, the Court said that the same cannot be given preference over the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.
“The statement recorded under Sections 164 as well as 161 of CrPC can be used for omission and contradiction purposes, but the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of CrPC cannot be ignored merely on the ground that she has not supported her allegations in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C.”, the Court said.
In view of the same, the Court dismissed the present application.
Case Title: Munshilal Dhakad Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 23671 Of 2024
