SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shankar Lal vs State & Anr on 5 April, 2018

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.)


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.).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.

Mr. M.S. Borawat.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.



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