SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pradeep Kumar Meena S/O Shri … vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 14 September, 2018

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.
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p., Rajasthan
—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr.
Rajveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

14/09/2018

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

376(2)(N) IPC.

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

trial.

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.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Arun/22

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation