Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs The State Of Maharashtra

2) Brief facts:

(c) Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2006, Respondent No. 2 preferred a Revision Application being No. 1261 of 2006 before the Court of Sessions. Respondent No. 2 also filed a Misc. Appln. being No. 244 of 2007 in Sessions Case No. 858 of 2006 for discharge under Section 366 of the IPC and for remanding the matter back to the lower Court. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, by order 3 dated 10.04.2007, rejected the Misc. Application being No. 244 of 2007 filed by the Respondent No. 2.

13) In the case at hand, the appellant herein and Respondent No. 2 were in a relationship. On 06.09.2003, the appellant herein and Respondent No. 2 attended a birthday party of one of their friends. As per the allegations in the complaint, in the early hours of 07.09.2003, when all the friends proceeded towards the venue for dinner, Respondent No. 2 herein, in order to drop her to the venue, took her to his house at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai and asked her to get down from the car. When she refused for the same, Respondent No. 2 forcibly pulled her out of the car and lifted her up and took her to his house and put her on his bed. After this, Respondent No. 2 herein started saying “I love you and why are you not marrying me” and started beating her with his hands and belt. He also hit her head across the wall. As a result, she sustained injuries on her person. At around 2 a.m., when the father of Respondent No. 2 returned home, he took the appellant herein to her home. On 12.09.2003, FIR was got registered under various Sections of the IPC. One week thereafter, i.e. on 10 19.09.2003, a further statement was given by the appellant, after explaining the facts to her mother wherein the appellant has made out a case of being molested. Her explanation that it was not stated earlier due to embarrassment does not inspire confidence as FIR was lodged five days’ after the incident and, therefore, she lodged the same with due deliberation. Again, why within one week thereafter she thought of mentioning about the molestation and did not feel embarrassed now? There is no explanation for that. The act of pulling out the appellant herein from the car of Respondent No. 2 was witnessed by the watchman. In this view of the matter, it is apparently clear that the allegation is confined to aspect of Respondent No. 2 herein forcibly taking her to his house. However, the allegations of removing her clothes and touching her inappropriately or molestation was added afterwards. This Court has time and again held that mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of Section 366 IPC. It must be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in 11 order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It is evident on record that Respondent No. 2 and the appellant herein were in a relationship which was known to their families also. The primary allegations are that Respondent No. 2 took her forcibly to his house. But it was not with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse. Actually, as per the prosecutrix, Respondent No. 2 first expressed his love for her and afterwards he started beating her with waist belt and using his hands which fact is evident on record. The statement of being molested at the hands of Respondent No. 2 was not given at once and was given later. The very same acts of Respondent No. 2 do not show his intent to abduct her in order to marry her against her will or to force her or seduce her to illicit intercourse.

Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.

12) We are of the considered opinion that the essence of all the applications and orders filed before the courts below is same. There is no point in considering that in all the courts below, the other applications filed by Respondent No. 2 were not brought to the notice of the court at this stage. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate if we would confine 9 our discussion to the applicability of Section 366 of the IPC in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

15) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the charge under Section 366 of the IPC is not maintainable and the High Court was right in upholding so. We are in agreement with the order passed by the High Court. However, since the matter is pending since 2003 and is still at the stage of charge framing, we deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within 6 (months) from the date of passing of this judgment. It is also made clear that the observations recorded in this judgment are for the purpose of applicability of Section 366 of the IPC only and trial Court shall decide the matter on merits. The appeal is dismissed.

(R.K. AGRAWAL) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 24, 2018.