Rajni Naruka (Smt. ) vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 24.06.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Alwar whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the protest petition of the complainant-petitioner, and has accepted the negative final report submitted by the Police.

It is the case of the petitioner that the accused, namely Narayan Sahay Sharma, respondent No. 2 had repeatedly raped her for the last ten years. She had filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The complaint was sent u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar. However, after a thorough investigation, the Police has submitted a negative final report. The petitioner submitted a protest petition against the negative final report before the learned Magistrate. However, vide order dt. 24.06.2009, the learned Magistrate accepted the negative final report, and dismissed the protest petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner had clearly stated in her statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. that in 1995, Narayan Sahay Sharma had raped her at night and had taken explicit photographs of her. Using these photographs, he had blackmailed her. Secondly, the statements of the prosecutrix has been supported by other witnesses produced by her. Thirdly, the learned Magistrate has erred in discussing the evidence while passing a cognizance order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has discussed the conclusion of the Police. According to the learned Magistrate, the Police had concluded that the petitioner was living with Narayan Sahay Sharma, as his wife, for a period of ten years. Therefore, there was no evidence to prove that she had been raped. In fact, it was a case of consensual sex between two adults. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that two of the witnesses produced by the petitioner herself, namely Sumitra Rathore and Harjeet Kaur had stated in their statements that both the petitioner and Narayan Sahay Sharma were living as husband and wife. The learned Magistrate has also noticed that according to the witnesses, namely Harjeet Kaur and Kamlesh Sharma, the petitioner had married another person in April, 2004. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make out even a prima facie case of offence u/s 376 IPC.

Considering the evidence which is available on record, especially the statements of Sumitra Rathore, Harjeet Kaur and Kamlesh Sharma, the statement of the petitioner has not been corroborated by her own witnesses. Thus, clearly a contradiction exists between the statement given by the petitioner and the statements given by her own witnesses. Before taking cognizance, and especially in negative final report, the learned Magistrate is expected to not only discuss the negative final report, but also to consider the statements of the complainant and her witnesses recorded u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. In the opinion of this Court, the Magistrate has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in her.

Considering the fact that according to the witnesses mentioned above, the petitioner and the Narayan Sahay Sharma were living as husband and wife and that too for a period of ten year obviously, no offence u/s 376 I.P.C. is made out. Therefore, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order.

In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.