Madras High Court
F.Muhamedabi vs The Superintendent Of Police on 8 December, 2014
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.20691 of 2014 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 F.Muhamedabi ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District. 2.The Deputed Women Officer, Special Juvenile Police Unit, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District. 3.Anbumathi Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Geeyapuram, Trichy District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the first respondent to hand over the case in Crime No.12 of 2014 registered under Section Girl Missing on the file of the third respondent to the second respondent for further investigation based on the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 05.11.2014 and consequently direct the second respondent to invoke the correct panel provision under Sections 4, 5(i)(ii)(1)(q) r/w 6,17 of the Protection of Child from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 366- A, 368, 376 IPC as against the accused persons. !For Petitioner :Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen For Respondents :Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side) for R1 & R2. :ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a prayer to direct the first respondent to hand over the case in Crime No.12 of 2014 registered under Section Girl Missing on the file of the third respondent to the second respondent for further investigation based on the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 05.11.2014 and consequently, direct the second respondent to invoke the correct panel provision under Sections 4, 5(i)(ii)(1)(q) r/w 6,17 of the Protection of Child from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 366- A, 368, 376 IPC as against the accused persons.
2.The petitioner has come forward with a prayer to alter the provisions as the minor girl has been raped by the accused on the false promise that he will marry her.
3.Being a young girl, this Court thought that irrespective of the community, the Counsel and the Court can advise the girl's parents to give the girl, in marriage to the boy concerned. On that score, the matter has been adjourned today. The girl is pregnant and major now.
4. When the matter came up for hearing today, it was pointed out that the girl is pregnant and the Court can take up the matter in the Chamber. The petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are present in the Chambers. At that time, the girl stated that she consented for intercourse as the accused promised to marry her and ultimately, duped her. She also informed this Court that the accused already duped three other girls and she came to know those facts only recently. Hence, she is not interested in marrying the accused. She stated that she would teach a lesson and that no other girl in the society could face the situation that she is facing.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) stated that on enquiry, it is found that the girl is pregnant and the police have taken steps to correct the penal provisions incorporating certain provisions under Protection of Child From the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also I.P.C. as the dates of incident is relevant to decide the issue.
6. It is sad state of affairs that the minor girl thinking that she is in love with a boy, under infatuation, moved closely with that boy and landed up in this situation. The father is a "diabetic patient and he is a coolie. The mother of the girl stated that there are two brothers to her daughter, one studying in 10th standard and another one studying 5th standard.
7. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in Rafiq v. State of U.P., reported in (1980)4 SCC 262, has observed that "when a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury, but the deep sense of some deathless shame.... judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry."
8. Justice Arijit Pasayat in the judgment in Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771, has mentioned that "while a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female." In Bodhisatwa v. Ms.Subdhra Chakroborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490, the Apex Court has held that 'rape' as an offence which is violative of the fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court further held that rape is a crime not only against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire physical of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional cries. Rape is therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against the basic human rights and is a violation of the victim's most cherished right, namely, the right to life which includes the right to live with human dignity contained in Article 21."
9. In 2013 (7) SCC 77 (Shyam Narain Vs. Stage NCT of Delhi) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case where eight years old girl was brutally raped, has observed that young girl was dealt with animal passion and her dignity and purity of physical frame was shattered. With the efflux of time, she would grow up with a traumatic experience, an unforgettable shame. She may not be able to assert the honour of a women for no fault of hers. When she suffers, collective at large also suffers such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by society and demands just punishment from the court. In that case also, the appellant/accused came to the house of the victim when the parents were away and also contended that the accused was a father of four children.
10.The Supreme Court has held that just punishment alone satisfies the collective crime of society and also serious as a deterrent. The Apex Court has also held the crime against the women and children more particularly rape is a monstrous burial of dignity of a women in the darkness and it is a crime against the holy body of a women and the soul of the society.
11. Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, with an expectation that the police would nab the culprit and bring the issue to a logical conclusion. The respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the girl as she has requested the police to initiate the action under the provisions of enactment supra. The Inspector of Police (R.Hemalatha) All Women Police Station, Geeyapuram, Trichy District, is directed to ensure appropriate protection to the petitioner and her family members. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.12.2014 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gsr To
1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
2.The Deputed Women Officer, Special Juvenile Police Unit, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
3.Anbumathi Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Geeyapuram, Trichy District.
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J gsr Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.20691 of 2014 08.12.2014