HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1527/2018
Pradeep Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rajjulal Meena B/c Meena, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Village Khanpur Meena Tehsil Badi Police
Thana Badi Distt. Dholpur Raj.
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p., Rajasthan
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by
order dated 08.08.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
Women Atrocities Cases, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
whereby petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
was having an knowing the prosecutrix since 2013. Prosecutrix in
her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that
she was continuously in telephonic conversation with the
petitioner and she had sexual relationship with the petitioner,
wrong allegations has been made that petitioner has made video
clipping and on the basis of that video clipping he sexually
exploited the prosecutrix.
(2 of 4) [CRLR-1527/2018]
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that even after
prosecutrix got engaged she continued to share the house with
petitioner and continued the relationship.
4. It is also contended that there is inordinate delay of more
than one year in lodging the FIR. It is also contended that no
video clipping has been recovered by the police and no charge has
been framed under Section 201 of IPC.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Dilawar
Balu Kurana Vs. State of Maharashtra” (2002) 2 SCC 135
and “Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr.”
(1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein the Apex Court has dealt with Section
227 of Cr.P.C. and has formulated certain principles. It is held by
the Apex Court that the Judge while considering the question of
framing of charges under the said section has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused
has been made out. If grave suspicion against the accused is
disclosed, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge
however, if two views are equally possible and the judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise
to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he
will be fully within his right to discharge the accused Court
however held that for determining prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to
lay down a rule of universal application. The Court also held that
the Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution and has to consider the broad probabilities of the
case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and
(3 of 4) [CRLR-1527/2018]
so on, however judge is not required to make roving enquiry into
the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting the
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.
His contention is that prosecutirx in her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. has specifically alleged that she was subjected to rape
on the pretext of posting the video clipping on public domain.
Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on “Chitresh
Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)” AIR 2010
SC 1446, wherein the Apex Court has held that for framing of
charge Court has to consider the material only with a view to find
out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the
conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.
7. I have considered the contentions.
8. Prosecutrix as per her own version in the FIR stated that
accused was known to the petitioner from 2013. However, in her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that
she was knowing to the petitioner from 2011. In her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that sexual
relationship developed between the petitioner and prosecutrix and
during the period of their relationship on many occasion she had
sexual relations with the petitioner.
9. Prosecutrix has lodged this FIR after a delay of more than
one year. She had stayed with the petitioner in the same house
even after she got engaged which points out that prosecutrix was
having consensual relationship with the petitioner. The fact that no
video clipping has been recovered and there is no allegation with
regard to section 201 IPC. it can be deduced that there was no
(4 of 4) [CRLR-1527/2018]
video clipping available with the petitioner by which he was forcing
the prosecutirx for illicit relationship.
10. Considering the entire charge-sheet this Court is of the view
that the material placed before the Court does not disclose grave
suspicion as prosecutrix had remained in consensual relationship
with the petitioner for a pretty long time. No video clipping was
recovered and there is no allegation that the petitioner has
destroyed the video clipping. The allegation that prosecutrix was
subjected to rape on the threat of posting the video clipping in
public domain cannot be believed. Delay in lodging the FIR is yet
another factor which shows that prosecutrix was having
consensual relationship and continued to share the house with
petitioner even after she was engaged. Thus, the offence as
alleged is not made out against the petitioner and there is no
sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. The order
passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside.
11. Revision filed by the petitioner is allowed, impugned order is
quashed and set aside. Petitioner is discharged.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)