Tej Narayan Mathur vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR registered at Crime No. 151/2011, in Police Station Bairad, Shivpuri (M.P.) and the proceedings of Case No. 79/2011 Special, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Shivpuri, registered u/s 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Brief facts of the petition are that Smt. Pancho W/o. Janved Adivasi lodged the report at Police Station Bairad, District Shivpuri that she is residing in the house of Parmal Jatav on rental basis. On 30.07.2011 at about 9:15 P.M. when she was lying in her room at cot at that moment Tej Narayan alongwith some another unknown person entered in the house and asked the complainant to show the revenue paper when complained replied that she will show the paper in the Morning thereafter Tej Narayan caught hold her breast and thrown her on ground and the person accompanied Tej Narayan has left the place after shutting the door. Tej Narayan has lifted her Sari and Petticoat and committed rape on her. When light came Tej Narayan wore his cloth and tried to escape from the place of occurrence complainant gave a lathi blow and Tej Narayan ran away when she raised alarm Kaliya, Pooja, Shyamwati have seen Tej Narayan going, on this Crime No. 151/2011 u/s 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the petitioner.

After due investigation charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner being aggrieved of the same, petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is a major lady. During investigation she had submitted an application before SDOP, Pohari that the petitioner has not committed any offence and she got him falsely implicated. It is further submitted that in her medical report no sign of rape or resistance was found. The complainant and her husband has sworn affidavit in favour of the petitioner before this Hon''ble Court. It is further submitted that the complainant has also filed complaint against Ex. Patwari, Brijlal who was instrumental in getting false report of rape lodge against the petitioner and her statement has been recorded by the learned JMFC, in which complainant has stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence. In view of the aforesaid statement the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will amounts to abuse of process of law, hence prayed for quashing of the FIR and proceedings of case No. 79/2011.

Learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that the complainant has lodged the report against the petitioner alleging that rape has been committed, thereafter complainant has submitted an application alongwith her affidavit that the petitioner is pressurizing her to entered into compromise, hence it is prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the case diary.

From perusal of the FIR it reveals that the complainant has lodged the report alleging that the petitioner has committed rape on her. This report has been lodged within 45 minutes of the commission of the offence at Police Station Bairad, which is situated 1/2 Km away from the place of the occurrence.

From perusal of the medical report of the prosecutrix it appears that she has received bruise on right arm. During investigation case diary statement of the complainant has been recorded on 01.08.2011, in which she has categorically stated that the petitioner has committed rape on her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copy of the affidavit of the complainant in which she has stated that at the instance of some persons belonging to village Bairad, she lodged the report against Tej Narayan and another. Tej Narayan and another person never visited her house and committed rape and Tej Narayan has not committed any rape on her. Gajipal Yadav the husband of the complainant has also stated that his wife is illiterate lady the villagers took his wife and lodged the report against Tej Narayan. He has not committed any rape with his wife.

Complaint filed by the complainant on 01.08.2011 and the copy of the statement recorded u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. has also been filed. The statement reveals that Brijlal, Patwari came to her house and asked her to lodge the report against Tej Narayan when she and her husband refused then Brijlal caught hold her hand and torn her Blouse and took her to Police Station and asked her to lodge the report against Tej Narayan, as a result of which she lodge the report against Tej Narayan, this statement has been recorded on 29.08.2011.

It is pertinent to mention here that in the case diary application addressed to SDOP, Pohari is available which goes to shows that the complainant has stated that on 30.07.2011 Tej Narayan alongwith some unknown person came to her house and Tej Narayan has committed rape on her. The report of the incident was lodged by her and family members of Tej Narayan are pressurizing her to entered into compromise. It is further submitted that she has not sworn any affidavit regarding the incident and she prayed that on her report the action be taken against Tej Narayan, this has been given on 19.08.2011 alongwith the affidavit of complainant. Guddi and Narayane have given the statement that they have accompanied Pancho Bai to the Office of SDOP where complainant has given the application alongwith her affidavit.

Thus, the complainant herself has raised the question mark with regard to the affidavit alleged to have been executed by her.

Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of rape are not supported by the medical report appears to be devoid of any merits. A bruise has been found on the body of the complainant and the fact that she is married lady, taking into consideration all these facts and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

Considering that the petitioner has lodged the report within 45 minutes of the alleged rape committed by the petitioner and given her statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. corroborating her allegation against the petitioner as well as the submission of the application alongwith her affidavit and the statement of Guddi and Narayane that the complainant submitted an application alongwith affidavit in the Office of SDOP., Pohari in their presence. No case is made out for exercising of extra ordinary power of this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits.