Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2

2025:HHC:37742

2. It has been asserted that an FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 10 years, which reflects the abuse of the .

process of law. The present dispute stems from an incident that occurred in the year 2014, when a compromise was effected between the victim's mother and co-accused Rakesh Shah. The informant made a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Una, on of 24.11.2022 against the petitioner, which was marked to the Superintendent of Police, Una. The inquiry was conducted by the rt Women Police Station, Una. No case was found against the petitioner after the inquiry. Another inquiry was conducted, which culminated into proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C. Allegations of rape were found false. The informant filed a zero FIR alleging sexual abuse by the petitioner. The Investigating Officer visited Hoshiarpur for the investigation. The victim could not identify the hotel where she was victimised. The victim sought the help of the District Legal Services Authority, Una and filed a complaint against the petitioner and co-accused.

the informant. She became unconscious, and the co-accused raped her. The informant made complaints against the co-

accused and the accused before Deputy Commissioner, Una. The complaint was sent to the police, and a Zero FIR was registered on of 15.05.2023. No action was taken. The informant made an online complaint. She also wrote letters to this Court. The matter was rt inquired through DLSA, Una. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim was medically examined, and as per the report, the possibility of sexual intercourse in the past could not be ruled out. The victim made a statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that she was raped by the co-accused.

This statement does not show any consent on the part of the rt victim; rather, it shows that the victim was unconscious and incapable of consent when she was raped. Hence, the judgments in Maninder Kumar (supra), Suresh Kumar (supra), Deepak Pathania (supra), Govind Sajjan Rathod (supra), and Kapil (supra) do not apply to the present case.

17. It was submitted that two FIRs have been registered against the same incident, which is impermissible. This submission will not help the petitioner. It is stated in the petition itself that zero FIR No. 4 of 2023 was registered. The investigation was conducted, and no action was taken; however, this matter cannot be seen while deciding the bail petition and is to be taken by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings.