Manish Solanki vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

This C482 application is filed by the applicant for quashing the judgment and order dated 27.06.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.477 of 2023, Wadi Vs. Mohini Rana and judgment and order dated 01.07.2023, passed in Criminal Revision No.145 of 2023, Manish Solanki Vs. State of Uttarkahand and another both arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.140 of 2022, under Sections 376 and 504 of IPC registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, Dehradun.

Facts of the case in brief are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no.3 against the applicant alleging therein that he has committed rape on the false pretext of marriage. On the basis of these allegations investigation was carried out by different Police Officers, who after investigation submitted a final report stating therein that there is no evidence against the applicant. Against the final report a protest petition was filed by respondent no.3 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun took cognizance against the applicant, against which applicant filed a revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun who in turn dismiss the said revision. Hence, the C482 application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the courts below have committed grave irregularity in taking cognizance against the applicant even after filing of a final report by the Investigation Officer. He submits that the present FIR has been lodged by respondent no.3 to extort money from the applicant and to tarnish his image. He also submits that respondent no.3 was employed by the applicant to take care of his minor son. This fact clearly shows that respondent no.3 was aware about the marital status of the applicant. He further submits that final report was filed by the Investigating Agency after taking statements of various other staff members of the applicant who testified that respondent no.3 was fully aware of the marital status of the applicant. He also submits that the FIR was lodged after 7 years of the alleged incident with in itself raises doubt over the prosecution story. He submits that even after her own marriage respondent no.3 used to visit the applicant along with her husband which she would have not done if the applicant have had ravaged her.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since 2022 respondent no.3 started to blackmail him for illicit money, on which the applicant blocked her number. He submits that the present FIR is just to extort from him the illegal payment. The learned counsel substantiates his arguments by submitting photographs of respondent no.3 with child of the applicant.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that respondent no.3 has been dishonestly duped by the present applicant into a love affair thereby causing her financial as well as physical abuse. He further submits that respondent no.3 belongs to a financially sound family and there is no occasion for her to work as a nanny for someone’s child. He further submits that the applicant raped her on multiple occasions on the false pretext of marriage. It was only on 19.08.2021 that respondent no.3 came to know about the marital status of the applicant. He also submits that the applicant continued to ravish her by threatening her that if she does not obliged he will leak her obscene videos all over the internet.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Investigating Officers after detailed investigation and examining the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. submitted a final report stating therein that there are no incriminating evidences against the present applicant.

The applicant is his rejoinder affidavit submits that even if the allegations of respondent no.3 are to be believed for a moment and it is believed that the respondent no.3 came to know about the marital status of the applicant in the year 2021 even then her conduct of keeping in touch with the applicant till the year 2022 and lodging an FIR in the year 2022 raised serious doubt in the prosecution story.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that conduct of respondent no.3 is highly suspicious as the documentary evidences and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that respondent no.3 was well aware of the marital status of the present applicant, therefore, it cannot be a case that she was ravished on the false pretext of marriage. Moreover her conduct of keeping in touch with the applicant even after her marriage, is highly unbecoming of a lady who would have been raped by the applicant. Further so the FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of 7 years which also raises doubts on the prosecution story. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that this case is a perfect case to use the inherent power enshrined under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned proceedings.

Accordingly the present C482 application is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 27.06.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.477 of 2023, Wadi Vs. Mohini Rana and order dated 01.07.2023, passed in Criminal Revision No.145 of 2023, Manish Solanki Vs. State of Uttarkahand and another is hereby set aside.