Pradeep Kumar Meena @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I have considered the contentions.

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.

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 video clipping available with the petitioner by which he

was forcing the prosecutirx for illicit relationship.

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.

Revision filed by the petitioner is allowed, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is discharged.