Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lalita Kumari vs Ram Prasad And Ans on 15 February, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.262/2003 Lalita Kumari vs. Ram Prasad & Anr. Date of Order : 15.02.2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY Mr. Amrit Surollia, for petitioner.
Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. Government Advocate for State.
Mr. Ajay Tantia, for respondent No.1.
Heard Mr. Amrit Surollia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Ajay Tantia, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The instant petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') is directed against the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2003 rendered by the learned Judge, Mahila Utpidan & Dowry Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.60/2001 requiring a prosecution to be launched against the petitioner under Section 193 I.P.C.
The facts, in short leading to filing of the instant petition, are that the FIR was lodged on 25.04.2001 by the petitioner alleging that the respondent No.1 had committed rape on her and had also tried to outrage her modesty. The case was registered against the latter and the police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against respondent No.1 under Section 376/354 I.P.C. The case being one to be tried by a Court of Sessions, it was registered as Sessions Case No.60/2001, where the respondent No.1 denied charge under the aforementioned provision of the I.P.C. and in the trial, that followed, none of the prosecution witnesses including the petitioner/prosecutrix did implicate him with the offences with which he was charged. The prosecutrix, in particular, denied the allegations contained in the FIR, though she admitted her signature thereon. On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.1 and being of the view that he had been subjected to a false prosecution directed registration of a case against the petitioner under Section 193 I.P.C. It is submitted at the Bar that in compliance of the said direction as contained in the judgment and order impugned herein, a complaint has been lodged and as on date the petitioner is standing trial in the court of Economic Offences and Prevention of Riots, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, next date whereof fixed is 22.02.2013. It is also submitted that this case is registered as complaint case No.272/2006 and is pending for over six years.
Mr. Surollia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during pendency of the trial based on her FIR, she was married to one Ishwar on 25.01.2002 and since then she is living happily married with two minor children. Without commenting on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR lodged by the petitioner on 25.4.2001, it has been urged that in view of the intervening development, namely her marriage and having regard to her likely ostracization by the society, if the accusation made by her against the respondent No.1 would have been pursued in a court of law, neither she nor her witnesses did testify in support of the charge, as a result of which, the respondent No.1 was acquitted thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thus insisted that in this singular factual backdrop, continuance of the trial against her under section 193 IPC is not only otherwise unwarranted but also agonizing it, inter alia, has adversely affected her married and social life. The learned counsel has, therefore, urged that the direction contained in the impugned order to initiate a prosecution against the petitioner, be interfered with and resultantly, the trial of the complaint case No.272/2006 be closed.
Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 did not offer any comment, Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has submitted that for the annulment of the proceedings of the complaint case No.272/2006, a separate challenge ought to have been made in the appropriate forum.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, I am of the view that though the ultimate conclusion of the learned court below that the charge under section 376/354 I.P.C. had not been proved against him, is otherwise unassailable, the finding that the prosecution was based on false evidence conjured by her lacks persuasion. True that the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, is required to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. Having regard to the narration recorded in the impugned judgment and order and the state of evidence as referred to herein, there is no manner doubt that the respondent No.1, by no means, would have been convicted under Section 376/354 I.P.C. The conclusion of the learned court below would be, to this extent, cannot be faulted. However, in view of the submission recorded herein before highlighting the intervening developments which, in all probability, might have contributed to the silence of the prosecution witnesses and the disinclination of the prosecutrix to pursue the charge, I am of the opinion that in the singular facts and circumstances of the case, she ought not to be made to suffer the consequences of the trial under section 193 IPC in complaint case No.272/2006. Though strictly speaking, an independent challenge to the validity of the trial in this case ought to have been laid before this Court or any other appropriate forum in the interest of substantial justice, it is considered appropriate in the exercise of this court's powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to provide the relief to the petitioner as sought for.
The direction contained in the impugned judgment and order to initiate a prosecution against the petitioner under Section 193 I.P.C., in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is thus interfered with. Consequently, in the exercise of this court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the proceedings of complaint case No.272/2006 is quashed.
The petition is thus allowed.
(AMITAVA ROY), C.J.
Mohit All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed./Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.