S. 377 IPC | Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Alleging ‘Sodomy’ Against Former State Finance Minister Raghavji

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against former State Finance Minister Raghavji for allegedly establishing unnatural sexual relations with former resident and staffs of his official bungalow.

While terming the complaint as a ‘politically-oriented-animosity’, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi said,

“…I am of the opinion that the complaint is sugarcoated with ill-motive, made to belittle the image in society and casting a stigma on the name of high-up-place person, who also holds important portfolio in the State of M.P. Notably, for almost three years, the complainant remained reticent and astoundingly it is only after he left the petitioner’s house, he felt humiliated that he made the complaint.”

Case Background

The complainant was introduced to the petitioner-minister in September, 2010 by one of the employees working in the bungalow of the minister. The complainant was homeless in Bhopal and requested the petitioner to allow him to stay in his bungalow and also requested that he may be recommended to get employment somewhere.

The petitioner allowed the complainant to stay at his bungalow and also recommended his name for employment in a private company and as such the complainant was appointed as an Accountant in a private company. He stayed at the bungalow till 25.05.2013.

The complainant after leaving the house of the petitioner made a written complaint to the police on 07.07.2013 alleging that the petitioner had been doing unnatural sex with him in lieu of getting him employed and that continued from 2010 till May, 2013 when he left the house of the petitioner.

He alleged that after getting humiliated, he mustered courage to raise his voice by initiating criminal action against the petitioner and also sought police protection as he was apprehensive of danger to his life for fighting against a politically influential person.

Such complaint was supported by an affidavit portraying the manner in which he was exploited by the petitioner. The affidavit further contained that when the complainant left the house of petitioner, the petitioner made a phone-call to him and threatened him not to discuss such things with anybody and whatever decision had to be taken, should be taken after discussing everything patiently.

The affidavit also stated that the complainant along with another person, who had also fallen prey to unnatural sex by the petitioner, made a plan to get video-recording done and prepared a CD depicting the petitioner doing unnatural sex with complainant and the other person.

Subsequent to the FIR, the police submitted a chargesheet against the minister. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the minister filed an application under Section 482, CrPC seeking to quash the FIR as requisites to invoke Section 377, IPC were not made out.

Contentions

Senior Counsel Shashank Shekhar appearing for the accused-petitioner argued that from the contents of FIR and other material collected by the police, it is clear that the complainant has lodged the complaint just to defame the petitioner in the society.

He underlined that nowhere in the FIR it is alleged that the petitioner has developed the physical relation and committed alleged unnatural sex without his consent and complainant has ever opposed it.

He highlighted that the complainant stayed at the house of petitioner for almost three years and during that period he has alleged that the petitioner had been doing unnatural sex with him, but neither he made any complaint nor opposed such act. He argued that such conduct on the part of the complainant makes it apparent that he was a consenting party.

Court’s Observations

After hearing the arguments, the Court confined itself to decide as to whether the said act of sexual relationship has been done with consent and whether the conduct and statement of complainant are sufficient to reach the conclusion that the instant prosecution is malicious.

After perusing the complaint, the Court observed that the complainant has nowhere stated that when the alleged offence of unnatural sex was committed by the petitioner, he opposed such act especially when it relentlessly continued from 2010 to 2013 and there was also no restriction upon the complainant to enter into or go out from the petitioner’s house.

“It reveals that after leaving the house of the petitioner, complainant decided to go against him as he was feeling humiliated. The affidavit made appendage to the written complaint also contained that complainant was residing in the house of the petitioner since 2010 and he was got employed as Accountant in a private firm and when petitioner started objectionable activities with the complainant, he never objected and this was continued till May, 2013”, the Court added.

After going through all the relevant materials, the Court formed the opinion that the complainant was in fact interested in ‘belittling’ the image of petitioner as he also admitted the fact that affidavit was prepared by him at the instance of an Advocate associated with the leader of rival political party.

The Court also took note of the fact that his father also made allegation against the complainant that he was an intoxicant and had the habit of levelling allegations against high-placed persons.

“Even from the complaint and affidavit it reveals that if such allegation of unnatural sex by the petitioner with the complainant is considered to be true, it does not give any notion about using force or allurement by the petitioner before doing such act”, the Court added.

The Bench also observed that the admission of complainant that he planned and prepared CD, itself raises clouds over the demeanour of the complainant and suggests that he was bent upon to collect material against the petitioner so that at later point of time it can be used against him.

“Further, I find that the complaint was made after handing-in-gloves with the leaders of rival parties and therefore it is nothing but the assimilation of personal and political antipathies, more precisely, a politically-oriented-animosity, which makes the petitioner’s prosecution malicious,” it added.

Accordingly, the Court held the case to be one of consent and therefore, not punishable under Section 377, IPC for the offence of ‘sodomy’. Thus, it allowed the petition by quashing the FIR and the proceedings held subsequent to the FIR.

Case Title: Raghavji v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 73

Case No.: MCRC No. 8403/2016

Judgment Dated: June 14, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Senior Counsel & Mr. Bhupesh Tiwari, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. L.A.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order