Satyendra Sheel vs State of U.P. and Others

We have heard Shri S. P. S. Raghav, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. dated 9.2.2009 lodged by Respondent No. 3 Pramod Kumar on Crime No. 18 of 2009, under Sections 376(2A-1), 504 and 506, I.P.C. police station Fariha, district Firozabad. He has also prayed the stay of arrest by the Investigating Officer.

It appears from the record that on 6.2.2009 Km. Shrimati, sister of complainant-informant was taken away by force from the way of Tahsil Jasrana by Shilesh Kumar and Tinkoo and gang rape was committed by them upon her, for which the F.I.R. was lodged and a case under Sections 376, 504 and 506, I.P.C. was registered by Fariha police on Crime No. 17 of 2009. When she went to the police station concerned for making complaint on 7.2.2009 the Petitioner being the S.H.O. of police station Fariha took the lady to his residence and by bolting the door and windows from inside, he himself committed rape upon her. The matter was reported to the police on 9.2.2009 and this case was registered. The Investigating Officer has interrogated the prosecutrix u/s 161, Cr. P.C. We have perused the case diary, where she supported the entire prosecution version. We have also perused the case diary of Crime No. 17 of 2009. In that case also the prosecutrix was examined by Magistrate u/s 164, Cr. P.C. on 13.2.2009, where also the prosecutrix supported the entire prosecution version implicating the Petitioner for rape. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised mainly two points, one regarding delay in F.I.R., another regarding mode of rape assigned in the F.I.R. He has contended that when the brother of another witness were already present in the compound of the police station and peeping through the window of the room where rape was committed by the Petitioner, how could it be believed that the police officer can commit rape upon a woman in the presence of so many persons. He has further contended that according to the F.I.R. the report was lodged to the police after two days and no plausible explanation was given. But the case diary was otherwise. The Investigating Officer has interrogated the complainant-informant, who has stated that after the incident he went to the higher authorities and brought the matter to the notice and after that he reported the matter to the police. In such cases normally some delay is caused in reporting the matter to the police, because the future of the unmarried girl remains on stake. The prosecutrix has clarified in her statement under Sections 161 and 164, Cr. P.C. referred to above that when the Petitioner bolted her in the room he was thinking that no one was there because he had already ousted her family members from the room. These are the facts which require evidence and in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the evidence cannot be taken to prove the defence version. This version of the Petitioner as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner can also not be decided at this stage that he has refused to give contribution on the birthday of the Chief Minister of the State and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case by Bahujan Samajwadi Party workers.

The F.I.R., statement of the prosecutrix and the witnesses reveal a cognizable offence and there is no material on the record to quash the F.I.R. Therefore, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.