HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2405 / 2014
Shankar Lal S/o Ganesh Ram @ VadhuMal Dariyani (Sindhi) R/o A-
80, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara District Bhilwara (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Smt. Varsha @ Meena Kumari W/o Jugal Kishore Khushlani
R/o House No.3G-15, Bapu Nagar, P.S. Pratap Nagar,
Bhilwara (Raj.).
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. M.S. Borawat.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 05/04/2018
By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner Shankar Lal has approached this Court for assailing the
FIR No.562/2014 registered at the Police Station Pratap Nagar,
District Bhilwara and all proceedings sought to taken in
furtherance thereof for the offences under Sections 452, 376, 323
and 384 IPC.
Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant Smt. ‘V’
aged 40 years, got the above mentioned FIR registered through a
complaint submitted in the court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhilwara. She alleged in the complaint that her
husband, who was working as a salesman, came into contact with
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-2405/2014]
the petitioner during the course of business activities. About 10
months ago, when her husband was out in the market, the
petitioner Shankar Lal came and inquired about him. When she
told the accused petitioner that her husband was not at home,
Shankar Lal insisted that he had to meet him and saying so, he
barged into the complainant’s house and misbehaved with her. The
complainant resisted the attempts of the accused but he forced
himself upon her and subjected her to rape. She was threatened
that in case, she spoke out about the incident, she as well as all
her family members would be killed. Thereafter, the accused
frequently visited complainant’s house in her husband’s absence
and subject her to rape. She submitted a complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara whereupon, an FIR
No.133/2014 was registered against the petitioner, however, he
agreed that he would stop harassing the complainant in future
whereupon, she and her husband entered into a compromise and
withdrew the report. Despite such assurance given by the accused
petitioner, on 16.06.2014, heagain forcibly entered into the
complainant’s house in absence of her husband and children and
threatened her that he had prepared forged documents of her
house and would sell it. Under this threat, the accused again
subjected the prosecutrix to rape. She tried to resist his attempt
whereupon, the accused took out a knife and threatened to kill
her. On the basis of this report, the instant FIR came to be
registered against the petitioner for the above offences. The
petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant
misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-2405/2014]
above FIR.
Learned counsel Shri Farzand Ali representing the petitioner
urged that the incident, which is referred to in the impugned FIR,
is of 16.06.2014. Prior to that, the complainant had lodged an FIR
No.133/2014 against the petitioner with the allegations of rape on
25.02.2014. When she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in
connection with the said FIR, she categorically stated that she had
lodged the case of rape against the accused because a monetary
dispute arose between him and her husband and that an advocate
had instigated her to file the case, even though Shankar Lal had
never assaulted her sexually. Shri Farzand Ali has placed on record
of the petition a copy of the complaint filed by the complainant at
Police Station Pratap Nagar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against
the petitioner on 29.06.2014. He urges that in the said complaint,
all that was alleged by the complainant was that the petitioner and
her husband were involved in commercial transactions with each
other. The petitioner was threatening the complainant and her
husband day in and day out and often became abusive as well.
Because of this conduct of the accused, the complainant was
fearing harm to her and her husband’s lives. The statement of the
complainant was recorded in connection with the said complaint
by the SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar on 29.06.2014 and in
such statement, she did not give any reference to the so-called
incident of sexual assault which allegedly took place on
16.06.2014. The statement of Jugal Kishore, husband of the
complainant, was also recorded in connection with the said
complaint on 29.06.2014 itself and in such statement, he stated
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-2405/2014]
that the accused came to his Mohalla on 16.06.2014 and hurled
abuses and went away threatening that he would implicate Jugal
Kishore in a false case. The petitioner was arrested in connection
with the said complaint on 30.06.2014 and was released on bail.
Referring to the said complaint, Shri Farzand Ali urged that had
there been an iota of truth in the allegations as set out by the
complainant in the impugned FIR that the petitioner subjected her
to rape on 16.06.2014, then there was no rhyme or reason as to
why the complainant would not make a mention of the so-called
incident dated 16.06.2014 in the complaint which she filed against
the petitioner under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C. on 29.06.2014 which
came to be filed well after the so-called incident of rape. He thus
urged that apparently, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
this case owing to a monetary dispute existing with the
complainant’s husband and that the entire set of allegations
levelled in the impugned FIR is false and fabricated. He thus
implored the Court to exercise its inherent powers for quashing
the impugned FIR.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri M.S. Borawat,
learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.
They urged that the petitioner is a man having clout and he
repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to rape in her husband’s
absence. In the earlier FIR as well the compromise was procured
under the pressure of the accused and was not voluntary. They
thus urged that this Court should not feel persuaded to quash the
proceeding of the FIR because the same discloses the essential
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-2405/2014]
ingredients of cognizable offences.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the impugned FIR and other relevant and material
documents placed on record of the misc. petition.
From perusal of the impugned complaint, it is apparent that
the alleged incident for which the FIR came to be registered is
alleged to have occurred on 16.06.2014. Few months earlier, the
complainant, who is a major married woman of 40 years, lodged
yet another FIR No.133/2014 against the petitioner at the Police
Station Pratap Nagar with allegations of rape. In connection with
the said FIR, she gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
categorically denying that the petitioner had sexually assaulted
her. The incident referred to in the impugned FIR took place on
16.06.2014 whereas the FIR came to be lodged through a
complaint filed in the Court of CJM, Bhilwara as late as on
18.07.2014. There is no reason for the undue delay in lodging of
this report. Furthermore, during the intervening period of the
alleged incident and the date of filing of the present FIR, the
complainant initiated proceedings under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C.
against the accused by filing a complaint with the SHO, Police
Station Pratap Nagar on 29.06.2014. There is no reference to any
incident of 16.06.2014 in such complaint. The complainant as well
as her husband were examined in connection with the inquiry of
the said complaint and neither of them, alleged in their
statements that any incident of sexual assault upon the
complainant had taken place in the house of the complainant on
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-2405/2014]
16.06.2014. This omission is far too significant and material so as
to be ignored and completely destroys and falsifies the allegations
levelled in the impugned FIR.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion
that allowing continuance of the proceedings of the impugned FIR
against the petitioner would be nothing short of a gross abuse of
process of law. The complainant has apparently misused the
process of criminal law by getting registered a totally false and
fabricated FIR against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined
to exercise its inherent powers so as to terminate the proceedings
of the impugned FIR.
Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The
impugned FIR No.562/2014 registered at the Police Station Pratap
Nagar, District Bhilwara and all further proceedings sought to be
taken thereunder against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
Tikam/90