Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaif @ Rahul @ Pitu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2021
Author: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
Bench: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
M.Cr.No.1271 of 2021
Kaif @ Rahul @ Pitu
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & another
Shri Sourabh Shrivastava, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Yashovardhan Shukla, P.L., for respondent no.1/
State.
Shri Mohit Naik, counsel for respondent no.2.
ORDER
(23.03.2021) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner/accused for quashing the charge-sheet No.528/2020 dated 6.8.2020 and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner in connection with crime no.425/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Betul for offences punishable under sections 370(4), 370(6), 370(A), 372 & 376(2)(N) of IPC, sections 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sections 5(L)/ 6, 11/12, 16/ 17 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of prosecution is that, the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, who is resident of Bijnour (U.P.) had visited the Dargah of Ajmer at Rajasthan along with
-2 -
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2021her uncle where she was separated from his company. She stayed there for three days, thereafter, co-accused Zoya Khan has come in her contact and on the pretext of taking her to her home, brought her to Indore and thereafter to Betul where she sold her to co-accused Kiran Pandagre for an amount of Rs.6,000/-. She remained in captivity of co-accused Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre, where she was forced to make physical relations with their customers and as such was forced to indulge in the business of prostitution for near about two-three months. The co-accused Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre used to charge money for the aforesaid act from the customers called by them. The allegations against the applicant is that he was the customer, who made physical relation with the prosecutrix after paying money to co-accused Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre. The prosecutrix somehow escaped from the captivity of co-accused Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre and lodged the report on 08.05.2020. On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offences has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed the aforesaid offence. Merely, on the basis of assumption and suspicion the petitioner has been roped in the aforesaid crime, inasmuch as, his name is not mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The provisions of offences
-3 -
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2021punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and POCSO Act are not attracted against the petitioner, as he has neither forced the prosecutrix to commit sexual intercourse, nor he himself committed sexual intercourse with her. The concerning Police has committed grave error in arraying him as an accused in the Crime No.425/2020 as juvenile accused with other accused and filing the charge sheet. Therefore, it is submitted that this petition may be allowed and the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings started against him may be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1/State and respondent no.2 have opposed the petition and submitted that the prima facie there is evidence regarding involvement of petitioner in the crime, therefore the trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance on filing charge-sheet against the petitioner. In view of aforesaid this petition has no merit and requested to be dismissed.
5. On going through the contents of the FIR of crime no.425/2020, which is allegedly lodged on 8.5.2020 by the prosecutrix registered against co-accused persons Kiran Pandagre, Sheetal Pandagre and Zoya Khan. It appears that no fourth person's name is narrated in the said FIR, but it is specifically mentioned that Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre were using the prosecutrix for prostitution work and many persons were visiting at their house and committing sexual intercourse
-4 -
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2021against her. It appears that afterwards statements of prosecutrix were recorded on two occasions i.e. on 9.5.2020 and 12.5.2020. In the statement recorded on 9.5.2020 there is no mention of the name of applicant, although the prosecutrix has disclosed the name of some of the persons, who were regular visitors at the place, where she was staying. Lateron, on 12.5.2020 on two occasions her statements are shown to be recorded. On first instance, it was recorded in detail, in which she has not taken the name of applicant, but lateron again supplementary statement was recorded on the same day, in which she has narrated the names of some new persons, as visitors at the house of co-accused Sheetal and Kiran Pandagre with the nick name of applicant "Peetu", but she has not narrated any specific act which has allegedly been done by him against her. Here it is worth to mention that his age is about 15 to 16 years and he is roped in the crime as juvenile.
6. It appears that on 7.9.2020 statements of Prakash Bairiya and Ravi Dholekar were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the said statements, they have mentioned the name of applicant Kaif, as the person who was visitor of the house of Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre. Here again, it is worth to mention that they have stated that applicant was visiting the house of Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre, so they were assuming that he must be going there for committing some unlawful act. They have again stated that friends circle of applicant Kaif is not good, so they presume that
-5 -
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2021applicant is also a person of same character and visiting there for some unlawful purpose.
7. During the course of proceedings one affidavit of prosecutrix is filed. In the said affidavit prosecutrix has categorically stated that applicant Kaif @ Rahul @ Pitu was neither visitor of the house of Kiran Pandagre and Sheetal Pandagre, nor he has committed any sexual act or used any criminal force against her.
8. On perusing the complete case diary, it appears that there is not a single iota of evidence against the applicant Kaif @ Rahul @ Pitu, aged about 15 to 16 years, except two vague statements of prosecutrix and two witnesses Prakash Bairiya and Ravi Dholekar, which are completely based on conjectures and surmises. On that basis, involvement of applicant in the said crime is not sustainable.
9. In view of aforesaid, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed and the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, deserves to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet No.528/2020 dated 6.8.2020 and subsequent proceedings, in connection with crime no.425/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Betul, for offences punishable under sections 370(4), 370(6), 370(A), 372 & 376(2)(N) of IPC,
-6 -
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2021sections 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sections 5(L)/ 6, 11/12, 16/ 17 of POCSO Act, so far as it relates to petitioner, is hereby quashed.
(MOHD. FAHIM ANWAR)
M. JUDGE
SANTOSH P MATHEWS
2021.03.25 11:04:59
+05'30'