Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes 2013 sodomy FIR against former minister Raghavji

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against former State finance minister, Raghavji in a sodomy case registered against him in 2013 [Raghavji vs The State of Madhya Pradesh].Justice Sanjay Dwivedi opined that the complaint was ill-motivated and that it was made to damage the image of the former minister in the society. The Court also noted that the complainant, who lived with Raghavji for three years, remained silent and only complained after he left Raghavji's house.."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," the Court's order stated. .The complaint was registered in 2013 alleging that the then minister had, for three years, sodomised the complainant in return for getting him employed. The complainant also claimed that he had video recordings of the abuse and alleged that he was threatened with dire consequences if he disclosed anything to anybody..After the chargesheet was filed, Raghavji moved the High Court for quashing the FIR, contending that requirements to invoke Section 377 (dealing with unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not made out. .Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that based on the FIR and other material, it was obvious that the complaint was lodged only to defame the petitioner. He underlined that the FIR did not say that the alleged act was non-consensual or that the complainant ever opposed it. Further, he argued that the complainant staying with the petitioner for three years and not complaining during that period, made it apparent that he was a consenting party..The Court observed that the complainant had nowhere stated that he had opposed the alleged abuse that took place for three years. It also said that there was no restriction upon him to enter or leave the petitioner's house..After inspecting the material, the Court concluded that the complainant was in fact interested in belittling the image of the petitioner as he admitted to the fact that his affidavit was prepared by an advocate associated with the leader of a rival political party.Further, it noted that the complainant's father had also alleged in his statement that the complainant was not mentally stable and was in the habit of levelling false allegations against high-up-place persons of society..It added that even if the allegations of unnatural sex are considered to be true, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner used force..The Court also observed that the fact that the complainant possessed recordings of the abuse raised doubts over his demeanour and suggested that he was hell bent upon collecting material against the former minister so that it could be later used against him..Further, it said that since the complaint was made with the assistance of rival party leaders, it was an assimilation of personal and political apathies, which made the prosecution malicious.Hence, the Court held that the case was one of consent and therefore not punishable under section 377 IPC. Accordingly, it allowed the petition and quashed the FIR..[Read Order]