Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kesri Singh Alias Keshar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MCRC NO. 2710/2022
Kesri Singh @ Keshar,
S/o Shri Babu Singh
Lodhi, Aged about 53
years, Occupation-Self-
employed, R/o Village
Majhguwan, Tehsil
Patera, District Damoh
(MP).
.....PETITIONER
(By Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. State of Madhya
Pradesh, through Police
Station Mahila Thana,
District Damoh (MP).
.....RESPONDENT
(By Shri L. Arora, Panel Lawyer)
2. Victim/Complainant.
.....COMPLAINANT
(By Shri Bhavil Pandey, Advocate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR dated 2 10.12.2021 whereby a case vide Crime No. 39/2021 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mahila Police Thana, District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(k), 294, 323, 342, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(1)(wi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. As per the facts of the case, the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police that she is a daily wager and aged about 36 years. On 06.12.2021, when she had gone to the house of the petitioner to collect her salary, the petitioner committed rape with her and also threatened her with dire consequences if the fact regarding rape is disclosed by her to anybody. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was registered on 10.12.2021 against the petitioner under Crime No. 39/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(k), 294, 323, 342, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(1)(wi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to validate his case, has submitted that after registration of the FIR, on 17.12.2021, the prosecutrix submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, District Damoh stating therein that she had never lodged any FIR against the present 3 petitioner with respect to the allegation of forceful sexual intercourse. She has also stated in the representation that her fresh statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. be recorded and accordingly closure report of the case be filed because she had never lodged any FIR. He has submitted that the FIR has been lodged after four days of the incident and after registration of the FIR, the petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was granted to him vide order dated 03.01.2022 passed in CRA No. 8272/2021. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix also filed an affidavit as well as no objection stating therein that she has no objection if bail is granted to the present petitioner. He has submitted that in the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix, she has very categorically stated that the present petitioner has not committed rape with her and the police has lodged a concocted FIR, therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it can be presumed that no such incident of forceful sexual intercourse ever took place and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. As such, the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and the consequential proceedings arisen thereof deserve to be quashed.
4. To vindicate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Delhi High Court delivered in CRL.M.C. 2384/2020-Lalit Kumar Vats 4 vs. State of Delhi and another decided on 04.12.2020. He has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in MCRC No. 11456/2020-Madhur Baghrecha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 14.01.2022.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that from the contents of FIR it is clear that the allegation of committing rape has been made by the prosecutrix against the petitioner and as such the offence has been registered. He has further submitted that merely because an affidavit has been submitted by the prosecutrix at a later stage taking somersault and informed the police that she has not made any complaint or lodged any FIR about committing rape by the petitioner cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has supported the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when complainant herself is denying the allegation of rape, it would not be proper to keep the prosecution pending knowing the fact that the same would be ended with the acquittal of the petitioner because the foundation of the case i.e. information conveyed by the prosecutrix regarding committing rape does not exist. 5
7. A plain reading of the FIR makes it clear that although the prosecutrix has not very categorically stated about committing rape with her and developing forceful sexual relation by the petitioner, but, she has stated as under:
"fnukad 6-12-2021 eS vius yMds iou dh etnwjh ds :i;s ysus ds'kjh lhax ds ?kj xbZ rks ds'kjh lhax us eq>s ?kj ds vanj cqyk fy;k vkSj njokts yxk fy;s vkSj esjs lkFk tcjtLrh esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;k eS fpYykbZ rks ds'kjh lhax us vius gkFk ls esjk eqg nck fy;k eS tSls gh ogk ls Hkkxh rks eq>s eka cfgu dh xanh xanh xkfy;k nsus yxk vkSj dgus yxk fd vxj ;s ckr fdlh dks crkbZ rks tku ls [kRe dj nsaxsaA"
8. From perusal of the record it is also clear that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in the aforesaid crime only on the ground that the complainant informed the Court that she had not made any complaint with regard to committing rape, but she had made complaint to the police out of anger as there was some dispute between her and the petitioner for non-payment of salary. The affidavit submitted by the complainant before the trial court and the representation made to the Superintendent of Police, Damoh are available on record and perusal of the same makes it clear that in the said documents the prosecutrix has very categorically stated that she never asked the police to register a case against the petitioner about committing rape. She has 6 stated that she had only informed the police that there was some dispute between her and the applicant about non- payment of salary. She has very categorically denied that she has made any report of committing rape against present petitioner. In the case of Lalit Kumar Vats (supra), the Delhi High Court has considered almost similar circumstance and observed that despite the fact that the rape is a heinous offence, but, when prosecuctrix herself is coming forward and saying that she made the complaint under some misunderstanding and does not want to prosecute the matter, it will not be proper to continue with the trial because ultimately it would be nothing but wastage of precious time of the court as well as public. This Court also in the case of Madhur Baghrecha (supra) relying upon catena of decisions of the Supreme Court has quashed the FIR considering the fact that if overall circumstances of the case are considered, the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out. Here in the present case also, from the contents of FIR it is clear that the prosecutrix has not very categorically stated about forceful sexual relation and later on she filed an affidavit and also a representation to the Superintendent of Police stating therein that under some misconception she lodged the FIR against the petitioner, but that was not for committing rape. 7
9. In view of the aforesaid, I am also of the opinion that keeping the trial pending would be a futile exercise especially under the circumstances when result of the trial is apparent. Even otherwise, now a days it is being observed that the cases of rape are registered, but, at later stage, prosecutrix and her family members do not support the case of the prosecution and make statements in favour of the accused and finally the accused is acquitted, but, in all these exercises, all the machinery supporting judicial system to provide justice is engaged unnecessarily.
10. In conclusion, after careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record and also considering the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Vats (supra) and also by this Court in the case of Madhur Baghrecha (supra), in my opinion, the present case is a fit case where this Court can exercise extraordinary power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the FIR.
11. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The FIR dated 10.12.2021 registered against the petitioner under Crime No.39/21 at Police Station Mahila Police Thana, District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(k), 294, 323, 342, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(1) (wi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 8 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings arisen out of the said FIR are also quashed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Raghvendra RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA 2022.02.17 13:34:58 +05'30'