Darshan Singh vs State & Anr on 9 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.
—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

2. Suman D/o Ram Lal Thakur, R/o Ward No.8, Gajsinghpur,District Sri Ganganagar.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. KC Sharma for Mr. Mridul Jain, for the
complainant
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
09/08/2017

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,

1988.

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)
[CRLMP-1531/2013]

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.

READ  H vs H on 28 February, 2014

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)
[CRLMP-1531/2013]

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

READ  Dnyaneshwar S/O Anandrao Rahate vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 2 July, 2002

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

concocted.

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.

sudheer

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *