Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Firoz Khan S/O Jiauddin B/C Muslim vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 November, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7035/2019
Firoz Khan S/o Jiauddin, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No.9,
Prabhat Colony, Mandi Khatikan, Pulina No.2, Bas Badanpura,
Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Suhana D/o Late Shri Firoz Khan, Aged About 19 Years,
R/o Near Tahira Masjid, Azad Nagar, Nai Ki Thari, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sehban Naqvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
20/11/2021
1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 152/2019 registered at police station Amer, Jaipur City (North).
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that FIR has been lodged by the complainant-respondent no. 2 alleging therein the commission of rape etc. It is also contended that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint in the year, 2016, in which her statement was also recorded. It is further contended that even after filing of the charge-sheet, Court is competent to quash the proceedings.
3. Reliance in this regard has been placed on "Rishabh Sethi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors." Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5767/2017 decided on 08.03.2018 and the judgment of the Apex Court in "Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. Of Net of Delhi)" in Criminal Appeal No. 1395/2018 decided on 15.11.2018.
(Downloaded on 26/11/2021 at 09:29:00 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-7035/2019]
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the status report which is taken on record.
5. Police has come to the conclusion that petitioner is father of the complainant-respondent no. 2. She has levelled allegations with regard to rape since she was a minor. Police has come to the conclusion that offence under Section 376(2)(g), 376(2)(n), 384, 328, 342, 323 & 325 IPC are made out against the present petitioner and the petitioner was not traceable. Charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and standing warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.
6. I have considered the contentions and perused the FIR.
7. Prosecutrix who happens to be daughter of petitioner has alleged that her father-petitioner has raped her since she was a minor. Petitioner has threatened to make her video viral.
8. FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offence. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that earlier in a complaint filed by the complainant, she did not level any allegations against the petitioner, cannot be taken note of at this stage as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, prosecutrix has levelled allegations of rape against her father- petitioner. It is true that courts have competent power to quash the proceedings, even after filing of the charge-sheet but present case is not a case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction where the daughter has levelled allegations with regard to rape against her own father, hence, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed.
10. Stay application also stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /64 (Downloaded on 26/11/2021 at 09:29:00 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)