ORDER 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. 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 : - 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. 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. 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.