Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Singh vs State Of Up And Another on 13 May, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Judgment reserved on 10.2.2020 Judgment delivered on 13.5.2020 In Chamber Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25033 of 2019 Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Mishra,Rajneesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.5.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, in Complaint Case No. 55 of 2018 under Sections 504/354 IPC & 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, 1989, P.S. Ghorawal as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.
3. As per the complaint, the opposite party no. 2, in order to obtain a house under Pradhanmantri Awas Yojna, had made an application and after inquiry by Nirankar Mishra in presence of Pradhan and Secretary it was found correct that she was entitled for a house and her name was entered at Sr. No. 33 in the list of beneficiaries. The accused applicant and other co-accused Moti Lal Verma had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from her to place her name in the final list but because of being poor, she could not arrange the said money. Despite that the accused applicant Om Prakash after giving temptation to her that he would get the house allotted to her, took bribe from her of Rs. 5,000/-. One week thereafter the opposite party no. 2 was called by him and was told that she had already availed the benefit of the said scheme earlier, hence her name would be deleted. Being disappointed, she returned home and two-three days thereafter, when she obtained list of beneficiaries, she came to know that her name had been deleted. Feeling aggrieved on 20.8.2008, she gave an application to the Chief Minister, Prime Minister, Rashtriya Adhyaksh Mahila Ayog and D.M., Sonbhadra and also made a complaint at IGRS Portal. Because of this action on her part, accused applicant along with co-accused Moti Lal Verma became annoyed and submitted wrong report at the said Portal and her complaint was disposed of. Thereafter, on 15.10.2018 at about 10:00 am, the opposite party no. 2 was called at the Block and during the conversation going on, she was taken to a vacant room in the Block which belonged to B.D.O. and there she was abused and when opposite party no. 2 apologised to him with folded hands, the accused applicant addressed her as 'Randi' and closed the door, snatched her mobile and forcibly touched her breast, torn her blouse and established physical relationship forcibly and when she screamed out loudly, co-accused Nirankar Mishra came on the spot and became nervous having seen the condition of the opposite party no. 2 and directed the accused-applicant to go to his seat. Thereafter, he took details from the opposite party no. 2 of the occurrence and thereafter he also pressed her breast and abused her using caste indicative words in filthy language and told her that whatever was done by the applicant, she deserves that only and expelled her from office. After being disappointed, opposite party no. 2 gave information of this occurrence to P.S. Ghorawal but she was not heard and was returned because the matter was related to B.D.O.. Feeling disappointed on 17.10.2018, she gave a registered letter to S.P. Sonbhadra but no action was taken then she approached the court.
4. Upon the said complaint, statement of the opposite party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which, in support of the complaint she has stated that she had applied for house to be allotted under Pradhanmantri Awas Yojna at the Kharutaon Block through proper forum and her name was at Sr. No. 33. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded for allotment of the said house but at the instance of Rajesh Yadav, Secretary, she somehow could arrange Rs. 5,000/- and handed over the said amount to him on 21.8.2018 but even then she was not allotted the house. On 15.10.2018, accused-applicant called her and took her to the room of Nirankar Mishra, B.D.O. and there she was abused using caste indicative words and was molested by pressing her breast, whereafter she raised alarm but accused-applicant would not listen and committed rape upon her. After opening the door, she kept standing there only and in the meantime Nirankar Mishra, B.D.O. came in a vehicle whom she told about all this but he snubbed her telling her that she should leave immediately. Thereafter she gave an application at the P.S. but the report was not recorded, rather she was counselled that the matter is of Block, hence she should post a registry. Thereafter on 16.10.2018 she sent a complaint to S.P., thereafter when no action was taken, she approached the court.
5. Record reveals that trial court had recorded statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of Ashok Bharti as CW-1 in which he has stated he knows the opposite party no. 2 for last ten years. On 15.10.2018 at about 11:30 am in the morning, when he was going on a motor-cycle to Ghorawal, opposite party no. 2 met him in dishevelled condition. Her clothes were torn. Then he had inquired from her as to what had happened, then she told him that for allotment of house accused-applicant had called her in the room of B.D.O. and there she was raped by him. Thereafter he took her to the P.S. but her complaint was not registered. Thereafter on 16.10.2018, he came along with the opposite party no. 2 to post office and a complaint was written by her which was posted to S.P. Sahab. The opposite party no. 2 had also told her that Rajesh Yadav, Secretary had taken from her a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for allotment of a house to her.
6. The other witness, Prem Lal has been examined as CW-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who also has stated that he knows the opposite party no. 2 as she belongs to his village. The opposite party no. 2 had told him that about two months ago, she had gone to the Block, where Secretary had committed rape upon her. She had also told that injustice was committed against her and that he should co-operate with her.
7. On the basis of said evidence, the trial court has passed impugned summoning order summoning the accused-applicant and one Nirankar Mishra, under Sections 504, 354 IPC and 3(1) Gha of the S.C./S.T. Act recording therein that complainant/opposite party no. 2 had stated in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that applicant had called her on 15.10.2018 and took her to the room of B.D.O., Nirankar Mishra and there she was abused using caste indicative words and thereafter touched her breast. The room was closed. She screamed loudly but he would not listen and forcibly committed rape upon her. She had also given an application to S.P., Sonbhadra being paper no. 3Ka/5 to 3Ka/6 and 3Ka/7 stating that the accused had called her and thereafter had torn her blouse and tried to establish physical relationship with her forcibly, whereon she raised alarm, hearing which B.D.O. Sahab came on the spot came. Thus, there was variation/discrepancies in the statement given by her in the complaint made before the court and version given before the S.P., Sonbhadra but it has been recorded that as the time of evaluating the version of the complainant, too technical view should not be taken and has further gone on to record that CW-1 has clearly stated that accused-applicant had called opposite party no. 2 for allotment of a house and had taken her to room of B.D.O. and started committing rape forcibly and CW-2 had also stated that the opposite party no. 2 had told him that she had gone to the Block, where Secretary Sahab had committed rape upon her.
8. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no. 2 has failed to implicate any Government Officer on the basis of her false complaint, which she used to make frequently and has instituted a criminal case against the applicant and two other officials with the allegation that co-accused had taken Rs. 5,000/- as bribe in order to allot a house to her and yet the same was not allotted and the same version has been mentioned,which has already been mentioned above. It is further mentioned that incident is said to have taken place on 15.10.2018 which is absolutely false because applicant had sought leave for the period 14.10.2018 to 23.10.2018 for proceeding on LTC, which was sanctioned and he had gone out of station along with his family. The applicant is holding a Government Post for a long time without any complaint. It is further argued that informant had already been allotted a house as he has shown vide document which has been annexed at page 20-D of the affidavit, in which at Sr. No. 38, her name has been shown as one of the beneficiaries. It is next argued that statement of all the three witnesses have tremendous discrepancies, therefore proceedings initiated against the applicant needs to be quashed, the same being malicious.
9. After having heard both the sides and having perused the record, I find that the accused-applicant had also given an application to B.D.O., Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra requesting that an inquiry may be held in respect of allegations made against him by the opposite party no. 2. In the said complaint, it has been mentioned by him that the opposite party no. 2 had made allegation against him that her name was deleted from the list of the allottees and that she was ill-treated regarding which he has to submit that according to the documents, the opposite party no. 2 had already been allotted a sum of Rs. 38,500/- in the year 2007-08, which had been credited in her account no. 10438 in two instalments. In respect of the allotment of the house, an application was moved by her on 11.5.2018, regarding which an inquiry was conducted by Sahayak Vikas Adhikari (Krishi), Moti Lal Verma, report of which is annexed, in which it was found that a 'pakka' house had been constructed containing five six rooms with 'pakki' walls having tiled roof. In this regard, B.D.O., Pradeep Kumar had been apprised when query was made. When the applicant had shown documentary evidence in respect of house having been allotted, he was abused regarding which the officials/computer operator etc. can be inquired and even B.D.O. was apprised but nothing was done against the opposite party no. 2 and the allegation being made now against him was absolutely false.
10. The inquiry report submitted by Khand Vikas Adhikari, Ghorawal addressed to D.M., Sonbhadra dated 24.9.2018 is also annexed at page 38 to 39 of the affidavit, which relates to the complaint made by the opposite party no. 2 and after inquiry, the finding given is that the applicant had given clear reply that the opposite party no. 2 had given an application in respect of allotment of house on 11.5.2018, inquiry regarding which was conducted by Sahakari Vikas Adhikari, (Krishi) Sri Moti Lal. Verma and she was found ineligible for the allotment of house by which she became annoyed and thereafter she has levelled false allegation against the applicant.
11. From the statement of applicant and written complaint of opposite party no. 2, it transpires that some talks had been held between two relating to eligibility/ineligibility of the opposite party no. 2 to get the house but the allegations made against the applicant were found to be false and no evidence was provided from the side of complainant/opposite party no. 2 and it has also been submitted in the said report that feeling aggrieved by non-allotment of a house, she has made a false demeaning allegations against the applicant in order to besmirch his reputation.
12. The said report which is quoted above as well as the perusal of the statement recorded above, would indicate that there are huge discrepancies in the version given by her/O.P. No. 2 in the complaint and her statements before the court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and it is also noticeable here that the trial court itself had noted about vide discrepancies being there between versions given to the S.P. and version placed before the court in complaint and yet the same was ignored by the trial court making a passing remark that too technical a view should not be taken in such matters which does not sound to be an appropriate approach. The trial court ought to have seen these vide discrepancies and should have tried to find out reasonable answer to get explanation of them but no such effort appears to have been made by him in the said order. It is palpable from the version given in the complaint that entire story revolves round the dispute regarding allotment of house to the opposite party no. 2 under Pradhanmantri Awas Yojna. The defence version which has come on record appears to be that she had already availed the benefit of the said scheme, which is evident from the inquiry conducted by Sahayak Vikas Adhikari (Krishi) dated 24.9.2018, in which it was found that opposite party no.2's allegation was totally false. It has also come on record that she had made a complaint to IGRS Portal, from where also her complaint with respect to allotting a house to her had been rejected, therefore feeling frustrated, she appears to have made false complaint against the applicant in order to build pressure upon him because he has submitted a report against her stating that she had already availed the benefit of the said scheme and was not eligible to get a house, therefore the entire prosecution version as mentioned by the complainant appears to be a false version initiated with a view to maligning reputation of the accused-applicant. Victim is a lady of about above age of 38 years and the occurrence which is said to have taken place in office and that too, two persons are being said to have molested her and one of them i.e. accused applicant is said to have committed rape in the premises of the office, appears to be a false version in order to implicate the accused applicant only because of frustration that she could not get a house allotted under the above mentioned scheme.
13. I would like to rely upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 385. Paragraph no. 102(7) of the said judgment is as follows:-
"102(7). Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
14. In view of above, the proceedings of the above mentioned case deserve to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 13.5.2020 A.P. Pandey