HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1531 / 2013
Darshan Singh Malli S/o Shri Mohan Singh Malli, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o
Chak 3 BBA, Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
2. Suman D/o Ram Lal Thakur, R/o Ward No.8, Gajsinghpur,District Sri Ganganagar.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. KC Sharma for Mr. Mridul Jain, for the
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.87/2013 dated
17.07.2013 lodged in police Station Gajsinghpur for the offence
under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act,
2. The facts as noticed by this Court are that the
respondent No.2 lodged an FIR No.87/2013 making allegations for
the offence under Section 498A of IPC. In this FIR, the respondent
No.2 had specifically demanded half of the property of the present
petitioner. The investigation and prosecution submitted negative
final report in the FIR dated 13.07.2017 and the same has
attained finality. Within a matter of three days, another FIR was
(2 of 3)
lodged on 17.07.2013, which is present FIR, bearing FIR
No.87/2013 for the offences under Sections 376 read with Section
(2) (V) of SC/ST Act. The allegation in the present FIR was that
the respondent was forcefully restrained by the present petitioner
for last six years and continuously gives beating to her.
3. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner
harassed her and forcibly committed rape upon her out of which
one child was borne who was at the age of six years. The
complainant has alleged that the petitioner had sexual harassed
her and had entered into relation-ship by fraud as he was 60 years
old and had fraudulently made the complainant believed that he
was unmarried. The complainant has also alleged that the
petitioner continuously harassed her and her child and even does
not send the child to the school. The complainant has also alleged
that the petitioner was selling the medicine. The vide range of
allegations levelled are in the three days after a similar FIR lodged
under Section 498 A of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that bare
reading of FIR No.82/2013 dated 13.07.2013 and FIR No.87/2013
dated 17.07.2013 points out that it is absolutely improbable that
incident which was alleged to have been happening for last six
years was not there on 13.07.2013 but suddenly came to mind of
the complainant on 17.07.2013. Apparently facts of the case is
squarely within the ambit of the precedent law laid down in the
case of Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors. Vs. State of Haryana Ors.
decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 21.11.1990.
(3 of 3)
5. Learned counsel for the respondent however, stated
that on the face of the FIR, the offence is constituted and opposed
the submission of the petitioner.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a factual report
finding the petitioner to be guilty the offence under Section 376 of
IPC read with Section 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST Act.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record as well as status report, this Court is of the opinion that o
the face of the FIR, the offence is not constituted because it is
highly improbable that on 13.07.2013, the narration of six years
old ordeal was not there whereas an FIR in the same police station
after three days on 17.07.2013 was carrying a different purport of
charges. Apparently, the allegation made in the FIR are false and
concocted. The complainant herself has said that the grievance
was that she did not get her part of the property and she was
abused along with her child since long time. On the face of the
both the FIRs lodged by the present complainant against the
present petitioner, it is apparently clear that the offence under
Section 376 of the IPC is not made out and the FIR is false and
8. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present misc.
petition is allowed and FIR No. 87/2013 for the offence under
Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of the SC/St Act are
quashed and set aside with the all consequential proceedings.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.