Shankar Lal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Shankar Lal has approached this Court for assailing the FIR No.562/2014 registered

at the Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara and all proceedings sought to taken in furtherance thereof for the offences under Sections 452,

376, 323 and 384 IPC.

Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant Smt. ‘V’ aged 40 years, got the above mentioned FIR registered through a complaint

submitted in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. She alleged in the complaint that her husband, who was working as a

salesman, came into contact with the petitioner during the course of business activities. About 10 months ago, when her husband was out in the

market, the petitioner Shankar Lal came and inquired about him. When she told the accused petitioner that her husband was not at home, Shankar Lal

insisted that he had to meet him and saying so, he barged into the complainant’s house and misbehaved with her. The complainant resisted the

attempts of the accused but he forced himself upon her and subjected her to rape. She was threatened that in case, she spoke out about the incident,

she as well as all her family members would be killed. Thereafter, the accused frequently visited complainant’s house in her husband’s

absence and subject her to rape. She submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara whereupon, an FIR No.133/2014 was registered

against the petitioner, however, he agreed that he would stop harassing the complainant in future whereupon, she and her husband entered into a

compromise and withdrew the report. Despite such assurance given by the accused petitioner, on 16.06.2014, heagain forcibly entered into the

complainant’s house in absence of her husband and children and threatened her that he had prepared forged documents of her house and would

sell it. Under this threat, the accused again subjected the prosecutrix to rape. She tried to resist his attempt whereupon, the accused took out a knife

and threatened to kill her. On the basis of this report, the instant FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for the above offences. The

petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the above FIR.

Learned counsel Shri Farzand Ali representing the petitioner urged that the incident, which is referred to in the impugned FIR, is of 16.06.2014. Prior

to that, the complainant had lodged an FIR No.133/2014 against the petitioner with the allegations of rape on 25.02.2014. When she was examined

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with the said FIR, she categorically stated that she had lodged the case of rape against the accused because

a monetary dispute arose between him and her husband and that an advocate had instigated her to file the case, even though Shankar Lal had never

assaulted her sexually. Shri Farzand Ali has placed on record of the petition a copy of the complaint filed by the complainant at Police Station Pratap

Nagar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on 29.06.2014. He urges that in the said complaint, all that was alleged by the complainant

was that the petitioner and her husband were involved in commercial transactions with each other. The petitioner was threatening the complainant and

her husband day in and day out and often became abusive as well. Because of this conduct of the accused, the complainant was fearing harm to her

and her husband’s lives. The statement of the complainant was recorded in connection with the said complaint by the SHO, Police Station Pratap

Nagar on 29.06.2014 and in such statement, she did not give any reference to the so-called incident of sexual assault which allegedly took place on

16.06.2014. The statement of Jugal Kishore, husband of the complainant, was also recorded in connection with the said complaint on 29.06.2014 itself

and in such statement, he stated that the accused came to his Mohalla on 16.06.2014 and hurled abuses and went away threatening that he would

implicate Jugal Kishore in a false case. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said complaint on 30.06.2014 and was released on bail.

Referring to the said complaint, Shri Farzand Ali urged that had there been an iota of truth in the allegations as set out by the complainant in the

impugned FIR that the petitioner subjected her to rape on 16.06.2014, then there was no rhyme or reason as to why the complainant would not make a

mention of the so-called incident dated 16.06.2014 in the complaint which she filed against the petitioner under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C. on 29.06.2014

which came to be filed well after the so-called incident of rape. He thus urged that apparently, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case

owing to a monetary dispute existing with the complainant’s husband and that the entire set of allegations levelled in the impugned FIR is false and

fabricated. He thus implored the Court to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the impugned FIR.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri M.S. Borawat, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They urged that the petitioner is a man having clout and he repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to rape in

her husband’s absence. In the earlier FIR as well the compromise was procured under the pressure of the accused and was not voluntary. They

thus urged that this Court should not feel persuaded to quash the proceeding of the FIR because the same discloses the essential ingredients of

cognizable offences.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned FIR

and other relevant and material documents placed on record of the misc. petition.

From perusal of the impugned complaint, it is apparent that the alleged incident for which the FIR came to be registered is alleged to have occurred on

16.06.2014. Few months earlier, the complainant, who is a major married woman of 40 years, lodged yet another FIR No.133/2014 against the

petitioner at the Police Station Pratap Nagar with allegations of rape. In connection with the said FIR, she gave a statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C. categorically denying that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her. The incident referred to in the impugned FIR took place on 16.06.2014

whereas the FIR came to be lodged through a complaint filed in the Court of CJM, Bhilwara as late as on 18.07.2014. There is no reason for the

undue delay in lodging of this report. Furthermore, during the intervening period of the alleged incident and the date of filing of the present FIR, the

complainant initiated proceedings under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C. against the accused by filing a complaint with the SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar

on 29.06.2014. There is no reference to any incident of 16.06.2014 in such complaint. The complainant as well as her husband were examined in

connection with the inquiry of the said complaint and neither of them, alleged in their statements that any incident of sexual assault upon the

complainant had taken place in the house of the complainant on 16.06.2014. This omission is far too significant and material so as to be ignored and

completely destroys and falsifies the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing continuance of the proceedings of the impugned FIR against the petitioner

would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. The complainant has apparently misused the process of criminal law by getting registered a

totally false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent powers so as to terminate the proceedings

of the impugned FIR.

 Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.562/2014 registered at the Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara

and all further proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner are hereby quashed.