Chattisgarh High Court
Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
M.Cr.C. No.1359 of 2004
Munku Ram Sarthi, Raipur (C.G.)
.....Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh.
2. Station House Officer, Jashpur (CG).
3. Smt. Lily Kujur, P.O. Gholeng, Jashpur (CG).
......Respondents
! Shri P.Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri
P.S.Koshy, Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Shri Vinod
Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner.
^ Shri Pramod Verma, Additional Advocate General
with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Agrawal, Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Panel Lawyers for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the respondent
No.3.
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Dated: 11/02/2005
: O R D E R
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jashpur on 6-5-2004, the investigation and the proceedings pending in Crime No.113/2004 on the basis of the said F.I.R. For deciding this petition, the facts in brief compass are that, the petitioner is an I.A.S. Officer, who was posted as Collector, Jashpur from 4-12-2000 to 2-1-2003. The respondent No.3, Smt. Lily Kujur, during that period, was posted as Supervisor in the Woman and Child Welfare Department and the said Department was under control of the Collector, Jashpur. Smt. Lily Kujur sent a complaint to various higher authorities including Police specifically alleging that the petitioner, who was the Collector, Jashpur, very often called her to his bungalow, and instead of official work, on such pretext, used to talk about her personal life. On 16- 10-2001, she was called by the petitioner. She refused to go, then a message was given to her through her colleague Supervisor Smt. Sushma Shahi that, the Collector, Jashpur has called her for official work. Therefore, she visited the Collector's bungalow, where the petitioner gave her various threats, and putting her in fear, committed rape on her and thereafter continued the physical relation till 24-6-2002. When Smt. Lily Kujur, on 24-6-2002, finally refused to surrender herself for intercourse and threatened him to report the matter to Chief Minister, she was suspended from her duty on 26-6-2002 by the petitioner.
2. The State Government, on receiving the complaint of Smt. Lily Kujur, to know the correctness of her allegations, requested Chhattisgarh Minority Commission to make necessary enquiry and submit its report. The Chhattisgarh Minority Commission, headed by Shri Ranjan Dayal, after due enquiry, taking statement of various witnesses and considering various records, found the allegations leveled by Smt. Lily Kujur to be false and accordingly submitted its report. In the capacity of Collector, Jashpur, the petitioner passed some orders canceling the revenue patta issued in favour of family members of Shri Nand Kumar Sai, the Opposition Leader in Vidhan Sabha and also took steps to declare her daughter disqualified to continue as Janpad Panchayat Member. As a result thereof, Shri Nand Kumar Sai started raising the issue of Smt. Lily Kujur, therefore, again the matter was referred to Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur for enquiry. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Shri Narayan Singh, in his enquiry, examined a number of witnesses and considered various documents, T.A. Bills encashed by Smt. Lily Kujur and her colleague, log book maintained by the driver of the petitioner and other documents. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur was not only referred to enquire into the allegations made by Smt. Lily Kujur but also a number of complaints made against the petitioner were referred to him for enquiry. As regards the allegations made by Smt. Lily Kujur, although no specific clear finding has been given by the Commissioner in his report, impliedly the said report suggests that the complaint made by Smt. Lily Kujur was not tallying with the factual matrix and available documents or to say the complaint was not found to be correct.
3. On the basis of the complaint sent by Smt. Lily Kujur, defamatory matter has been published against the petitioner, therefore, he also filed two civil suits for damages and one criminal case against Smt. Lily Kujur and others and the same have been registered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh and the proceeding in those cases are in progress. Shri Nand Kumar Sai has enmity against the petitioner, who was raising voice not only in Vidhan Sabha but also giving press statements and was putting pressure on the Government. Ultimately, as a result thereof, the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 6-5- 2004 at Police Station Kotwali, Jashpur.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, the said F.I.R. has been registered against him with mala fide intention and the proceedings have been initiated maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and the allegations leveled against him are only to harass him and registration of F.I.R. after more than 2+ years is sheer mala fide exercise of powers by the authorities, therefore, prayer has been made to quash the said F.I.R., the investigation and the proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. To appreciate the matter, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner on 6-5-2004 at Police Station Kotwali, Jashpur is reproduced below : -
"eSa Fkkuk cxrrkyh t"kiqj esa uxj fujh{kd ds in ij dk;Zjr~ gwa A vkt fnukad 6&5&2004 dks Jheku~ iqfyl v/kh- egksn; t"kiqj ds dk;kZy; dk i= dzekad iqv@t"k@jhMj@168@04 fnukad 5&5&2004 izkIr gqvk ftlesa Jh ,e-vkj-lkjFkh ,vkbZ-,-,l- + rRdkyhu dysDVj ftyk&t"kiqj }kjk Jherh fyyh dqtwj dh f"kdk;r ij vijk/k iathc) djus gsrq ys[k gS A ftlesa fyyh dqtwj dk f"kdk;r i= dh Nk;kizfr layXu gS A ftlds vuqlkj rRdkyhu ftyk/;{k Jh ,e-vkj-lkjFkh }kjk fyyh dqtwj ds lkFk cykr~ laHkksx djus dh f"kdk;r gS A izdj.k esa /kkjk 376] 342 Hkk-n-fo- dk vijk/k dk;e fd;k tkrk gS A ewy f"kdk;r i= pLik dh tkrh gS A f"kdk;r vkosnu i= udy tSlk gS & izfr ekuuh; iqfyl egkfuns"kd iqfyl gsM DokVZj] jk;iqj] fo'k;&vkfnoklh mjkao tkfr dh blkbZ /kekZoyEch cslgkjk vkosfndk ds lkFk t"kiqj ds dysDVj }kjk vius in ,oa vf/kdkjksa dk ncko izkIr dj lkr ekg rd cykRdkj djus ,oa /kedh nsus dh fjiksVZ A ekuuh; egksn;] lfou; izkFkZuk gS fd eSa vkfnoklh mjkao tkfr dh fo/kok efgyk gwa ,oa eSa blkbZ /keZ Lohdkj dh gwa rFkk eSa efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx] ftyk t"kiqj ds varxZr vkus okys Cykd xzke&euksjk esa i;Zos{kd ,lqijokbZtj+ ds in ij inLFk gwa A eSa ftl foHkkx esa ,efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx esa+ inLFk gwwa og ftyk dysDVj ds fu;a=.k ds v/khu gS A vDVwcj 2002 esa t"kiqj ds dysDVj Jh equdqjke lkjFkh us eq>s dHkh foHkkxh; tkudkjh ysus ds cgkus rks dHkh nkSjk dk;Zdze ds cgkus vius ?kj lqcg 8&9 cts cqykrs jgs ,oa ogka tkus ij eq>ls foHkkxh; ckrsa u djrs gq, esjh futh ftanxh ds ckjs esa dbZ ?kaVs rd eq>ls iqNrkN djrs Fks tSls & rqEgkjh "kknh fdl lu~ esa gqbZ Fkh A rqe vius ifr ds lkFk fdrus lky rd jgs gks A rqEgkjs ifr dh e`R;q dc gqbZ A nqljh "kknh D;ksa ugha dj jgh gks A nqljh "kknh djus dk fopkj gksxk rks eq>s crkuk Jh equdqjke lkjFkh ds bu iz"uksa dks lqu dj eSa ;g vuqeku yxkbZ fd os eq>s fdlh foHkkxh; dk;Z ls ugha cqykrs cfYd viuk VkbZe ikl djus ds fy;s cqykrs gSa A rc eSa dysDVj ds cqykus ij muds ikl nks ckj ugha xbZ A esjs u tkus ij Hkh lkjFkh us 16&10&2001 dks lq'kek "kkgh uked ,d i;Zos{kd dks esjs ikl ;g lans"k ns dj Hkstk fd rqjUr eq>s dysDVj caxyk tkuk gS A tgka t:jh foHkkxh; ppkZ djuk gS A lq'kek "kkgh ds cqykus ij eSa dysDVj ds caxyk lqcg 8 ls 9 ds chp xbZ tgka tkrs gh dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us lq'kek "kkgh ls dgk fd rqe okil pyh tkvks vc rqEgkjk dksbZ dke ugha gS A dysDVj }kjk lq'kek "kkgh dks okil ykSVkus ds ckn dysDVj Jh lkjFkh eq>s vius ?kjsyq ,dkUr psEcj esa cSBk;k blds ckn Jh lkjFkh us **cSBd psEcj** dk njoktk cUn fd;s ,oa eq>s dgus yxs fd rqe vkt esjs caxys esa jgks eSa rqedks izeks"ku dj nwaxk A eSaus dysDVj Jh lkjFkh ds izLrko dks tc Bqdjk;k rc mUgksaus eq>s o esjs ifjokj dks tku ls ejok nsus dh ,oa xkatk] pjl ds >wBs ekeys esa Qalok dj tsy Hkst nsus] esjh ukSdjh [kRe dj nsus dh /kedh nsrs gq, tcju esjs lkFk vDVwcj ekg lu~ 2001 ls cykRdkj fd;k rFkk blds ckn blh rjg ls eq>s Mjk /kedk dj yxkrkj os esjs lkFk cykRdkj djrs jgs eSa pwafd dysDVj ds v/khuLFk vlgk; deZpkjh gwwa ,oa dysDVj Jh lkjFkh }kjk eq>s lifjokj tku ls ejok nsus] ukSdjh [kRe dj nsus] tsy esa ltk nsus dh /kefd;ka nh tk jgh Fkh A blfy, eSa Hk;Hkhr gks xbZ ,oa mUgksaus vius in o vf/kdkj dk nq:i;ksx dj dbZ ckj esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;k A cykRdkj ds iwoZ dbZ ckj esjs lkFk dysDVj Jh lkjFkh }kjk v"yhy ppkZ djus ds ckn tc eq>s caxyk cqyk;k x;k rc eSa izFke cykRdkj dh ?kVuk fnukad 16&10&2001 dks ,d Vsi fjdkMZ fNik dj ys xbZ Fkh A ftlesa Jh dysDVj Jh lkjFkh dh vkokt ,oa cykRdkj ds iwoZ esjs fpYykus dh vkokt dh Vsi gqbZ gS A vkt Hkh esjs ikl mijksDr Vsi ekStwn gS A Vsi fjdkMZ lqu dj gh dysDVj ds vijk/k dh ?kVuk izekf.kr gks tkosxh A dysDVj Jh lkjFkh tc yxkrkj tc esjk nSfgd "kks'k.k djus yxs ,oa esjs cnkZ"r dh lhek ikj gks xbZ rc eSaus 24 twu 2002 dks dysDVj lkjFkh ls dgk vc eSa vius "kjhj esa vkidk vkSj vR;kpkj cnkZ"r ugha dj ldrh vxj mlds ckn Hkh vki esjs lkFk blh rjg dk cykRdkj djrs jgs rks eSa eq[;ea=h Jh tksxh ls feywaxh] essjs eqag ls bruk "kCn fudyus ij Jh lkjFkh HkM+d mBs ,oa mUgksus eq>s /kedh fn;k fd vc rqedks eSa NRrhlx<+ esa jgus ugha nwaxk vkSj rqEgkjk thuk eqf"dy dj nwaxk rFkk blds ckn fnukad 26&6&2002 dks dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us eq>s lLisaM dj fn;k ,oa eq>s ges"kk ds fy, N-x- ls ckgj pys tkus dh vU;Fkk tku ls ekj nsus o xkatk] pjl ds ekeys esa tsy Hkst nsus dh /kedh fn;k A esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS rFkk esjs ifjokj esa 2 ukckfyx iq= ,oa 90 o'khZ; o`) llqj ds vykok vkSj dksbZ ugha gS A bl rjg eSa vdsyh vlgk; efgyk gwwa blfy, dysDVj tSls cMs+ vf/kdkjh ds fo:) eSa fjiksVZ f"kdk;r djus dk lkgl ugha dj ldh ,oa ;fn eSa t"kiqj ds iqfyl Fkkuk ;k ,l-ih- ds le{k fjiksVZ ;k f"kdk;r d:axh rks Jh lkjFkh dks rqjar bldk irk py tk,xk d;ksafd iqfyl foHkkx Hkh mUghsa ds v/khu gS A blfy, eSa Mkd ls ;g vkosnu vkids le{k U;k; ikus gsrq Hkst jgh gwwa A eSa ,d blkbZ /kekZoyEch vkfnoklh tkfr dh ,d vlgk; efgyk gwwa ,oa esjh etcwjh dk vkSj vius in dk Hkjiwj Qk;nk mBk dj dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us esjh etcwjh dk vkSj vius in dk Hkjiwj Qk;nk mBk dj dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us esjh bTtr ywVk gS A eSa ekuuh; egksn; ls U;k; dh izkFkZuk djrh gwa A lgh gLrk{kj ,fyyh dqtwj+ lqijokbZtj ,orZeku esa fuyafcr+ efgyk ,oa cky fodkl LFkk;h irk & xzke fxjkax] iks- ckysax] ftyk & t"kiqj ,N-x-+ 13- dk;Zokgh tks dh xbZ % mijksDr fooj.k ls /kkjk 376] 342 rk-fg- dk izdj.k dj foospuk esa fy;k x;k @ ugha fy;k x;k rFkk -----------
dh izdj.k foospuk esa fy;k x;k] ;k {ks=kf/kdkj ds n`f'Vxr Fkkuk &&&&&&&& ftyk &&&&&&&&&&&&&& dks LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k ;k na- iz-la- dh /kkjk 154 **c** ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh dh xbZ A vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ dks iz-lw-i= i<+okdj@i<+dj lquk;k x;k] ftUgksus lgh&lgh vfHkfyf[kr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k A bldh ,d izfr lwpukdrkZ dks fu%"kqYd iznk; dh x;h A vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ ds gLrk{kj@fu"kkuh vaxwBk ,ua- ;fn gS+ t"kiqj izfr] ekuuh; U;k;ky; lh-ts-,e- egksn;] t"kiqj dh vksj lwpukFkZA"
5. The petitioner, placing reliance on Ashok Chaturvedi and others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and another, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 698, Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, M.N.Damani vs. S.K.Sinha and others, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 156, Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 3117, contended that, if the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses are considered on their face value, no offence is made out against him and, therefore, the F.I.R., the investigation and all the proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are required to be quashed. The petitioner also contended that, the enquiry reports of the Chhattisgarh Minority Commission and the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur are also required to be considered to determine that the complaint has been made against him only to take revenge with some political ulterior motive and with mala fide intentions.
6. During the arguments, the petitioner submitted that, he, during his tenure as Collector, Jashpur, cancelled some revenue patta granted to family members of Shri Nand Kumar Sai, the then Opposition Leader in Vidhan Sabha and also initiated proceedings to disqualify her daughter to be Janpad Panchayat Adhyaksh. It is contended that, the said F.I.R. against him is the result of the abovementioned enmities with Shri Nand Kumar Sai. The F.I.R. has not been lodged by Shri Nand Kumar Sai nor it could be shown that Shri Nand Kumar Sai has any interest to support this case against the petitioner. Being a leader if he raised some voice in Vidhan Sabha or gave statements to newspapers, it cannot be said that raising voice by him can declare the allegations leveled by Smt. Lily Kujur against the petitioner to be false.
7. The petitioner raised his further contention that, the date referred by Smt. Lily Kujur i.e. 16-10- 2001 to be the first date when she was raped by him is completely false. During the enquiry made by the Chhattisgarh Minority Commission and the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, T.A. Bills claimed by Smt. Lily Kujur have been considered, and in the said claim, Smt. Lily Kujur has shown herself to be on tour on 16- 10-2001. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State has made it clear that, during the investigation, Smt. Lily Kujur has been examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and she has explained the said situation and clarified that, on 16-10-2001, she was not on tour as shown in her T.A. Claim.
8. From perusal of the report submitted by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, it is manifest that, how the tour, said to be performed on 16- 10-2001 by Smt. Lily Kujur, is false, has been very specifically narrated with particulars by one of revenue officers Shri Pradhan in his complaint, and the details have been described in the report of the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur.
9. This is not the stage where it is to be decided that Smt. Lily Kujur was in fact on tour on 16- 10-2001 or was present at Jashpur and that too in the bungalow of Collector, Jashpur, but this fact is to be determined in accordance with the established principles of law and during the trial.
10. The second date referred to by the petitioner is 24-6-2002. The contention of the petitioner is that, the allegation leveled by the prosecutrix regarding incident took place on 24-6-2002 is false, because on that date, he was at Ranchi for medical check up. May the contention be true, but this is in fact a plea of alibi taken by the petitioner which requires to be proved by substantial evidence in a Court of law and that too during the trial and not at this juncture.
11. The further contention of the petitioner is that, he has filed two civil suits claiming damages for the said malicious prosecution and has also filed a complaint under Section 500 of the I.P.C. against Smt. Lily Kujur and those case have been registered by Chief Judicial Magistrate and proceedings therein are going on. This contention has no relevance with reference to declaring the F.I.R. false.
12. The petitioner further contended that, rape has been defined in Section 375 of the I.P.C., and according to that definition, not a single ingredient to hold the allegations leveled against him within the ambit of rape is there. From bare reading of the F.I.R., it is apparent that, Smt. Lily Kujur has specifically alleged in her complaint that, the petitioner bolted the door of his chamber and allured her for promotion, and on her refusal, gave her various threats, and by threatening, forcibly committed rape on her. She has also reported that, because of various threats, she, being a subordinate employee of the petitioner, was afraid, and the petitioner, misusing his authority, committed rape on her, and continued the physical relation from time to time. Section 375 of the I.P.C. defines the offence of rape. Its first clause unveils that if sexual intercourse is against the will of a woman that will amount to rape. In third clause, it has been provided that if the consent has been obtained putting her in fear, in that case also, the sexual intercourse will amount to rape. Prima facie the allegations are in the ambit of these two clauses. Apart from that, the threats given to Smt. Lily Kujur, as alleged in the F.I.R., also disclose the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. Closing the door and detaining a lady inside the chamber also prima facie disclose the offence punishable under Section 342 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are not such, which, if taken to be true, are not disclosing any offence.
13. No other point has been raised in the arguments.
14. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that, at this juncture, there is no substance to hold that the F.I.R. is false. Therefore, it is not liable to be quashed and accordingly the investigation and proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are also not liable to be quashed.
15. The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE 11-2-2005