Manjunatha D.T. vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the records.

This is a case where petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire FIR in Cr. No. 324/2013 on the file of the Malur Police, which is subsequently registered before Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376, 506, 509 of IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that at the time of lodging the FIR the victim girl has only stated that accused has insisted her to go along with him to Hogenakal but she refused. However, the accused has threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and also threatened that he would kill her father and other family members of the victim girl and he also dragged her from one place to another and thereafter ran away.

At the initial stages the police have registered a case under Sections 506, 509, 354(B) of IPC. The learned counsel would contend that subsequently the police have recorded further statement of the victim girl on 28.10.2013, wherein she has further stated before police that on the date of the incident that was on 09.10.2013 at about 9.15 am when she was proceeding to her school the accused has intercepted her on the way and dragged her into the car and took her to Hogenakal and by that time he already made arrangements for a room and in fact, he took her to the said room and committed sexual intercourse against her will and consent. Thereafter, he threatened her with dire consequences of killing her if she disclose this fact to any body and also gave life threat to her family members. Therefore, there are two contradictory statements made by the victim. Medical report is also does not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel also brought to my notice that attendance register extract given by the Deputy Principal of Government PU College, Malur to show that this victim girl was present on the date of incident and on this count he submits that entire proceeding is required to be quashed.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that police have already completed investigation and the materials so brought are sufficient to constitute the alleged offences against the accused. Therefore, there are no reason to quash the entire proceedings.

On perusal of the FIR, there are allegations made against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354(B), 506 & 509 of IPC. In the second statement recorded on 28.10.2013, the victim girl has categorically stated that the accused ravished her on the same day at Hogenakal in a room and threatened her with dire consequences. Age of the victim girl is mentioned as 15 years. In the further statement it is also stated because of the threat given by the accused she did not say anything about the accused ravishing her and taking her to Hogenakal and also committing rape on her, but subsequently she disclosed the same before the police.

When there are contradictions with respect to FIR and further statement, at this stage, while exercising the power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., this court cannot appreciate the material on record. In further statement it is clear that accused has taken the victim girl to Hogenakal and ravished her, but in the FIR this fact is not appearing. Hence, these facts are to be decided at the relevant point of time.

Further, added to that learned counsel for the petitioner argued about the attendance register extract, it is the document attested and given by the Deputy Principal and at this point of time this document cannot be treated as a proved document before the court. If at all the accused wants to relay upon this document, it has to be proved in accordance with law then only it can be relied upon.

So far as the medical report is concerned, entire charge sheet papers are not before this court. No material is produced with regard to medical examination of the victim along with petitioner. Even otherwise, it is not necessary for this court to conduct a mini trial to find out the truth or falsity of the case. The court has to only look into the prima facie material on record. I do not find any reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending before the Court.

In support of the above materials it is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, , has set down guidelines and held thus:

"Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."

Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.