Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 516 (MP)

Dilip Kushwaha @ Kuntu v. State of M. P.

2013-04-16

T.K.Kaushal

body2013
ORDER 1. Present petition has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR dated 26.4.2009 registered at Crime No. 12/2009 at Police Station AJJAK, District Sidhi under section 376 IPC read with section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. According to prosecution on 26.4.2009 prosecutrix, aged about 15 years, lodged a report at police station AJJAK, District Sidhi that since October, 2008 till date, petitioner is indulged in sexual relations under promise of marriage with her, has resulted in pregnancy of 7 months. When fact of such an advanced pregnancy was told to the petitioner, not only he refused to marry the prosecutrix but also misbehaved and abused herself and family members. 3. During the course of investigation prosecutrix vide Exhibit A/4 informed the police that in fact the petitioner did not commit rape with her, but rape was committed by one Akhilesh @ Lala Kewat. At the instance of Shyam Sunder Kushwaha, who had enmity with the petitioner, name of petitioner was mentioned in FIR and prosecutrix could not point out this fact out of her innocence and illiteracy. While prosecutrix could not succeed to establish the fact before police that actually rape has not been committed by the petitioner, she preferred a private complaint against Akhilesh @ Lala Kewat, Shyam Sunder and concerned police official but was of no avail. Police found that subsequent allegation against Akhilesh @ Lala Kewat was not true and rape was committed by the petitioner only. Charge sheet has been preferred in juvenile Court because at the time of incident, petitioner was aged 13 years only. 4. Present petition has been preferred on the grounds that the prosecutrix herself was not sure of the fact whether petitioner has committed rape or not that is why at one point of time she lodged report against the petitioner and in next breath she made accusation against some other person to be responsible for her pregnancy. During investigation, date of birth of prosecutrix was found to be 5.3.1994 and date of birth of petitioner was found to be 10.10.1996. 5. According to FIR, first incident of rape took place in October, 2008 meaning thereby in October, 2008 age of the petitioner was only 12 years, who alleged to have committed rape with prosecutrix, two years elder to him. 5. According to FIR, first incident of rape took place in October, 2008 meaning thereby in October, 2008 age of the petitioner was only 12 years, who alleged to have committed rape with prosecutrix, two years elder to him. Such relationship said to be continued for months together and has resulted into pregnancy of 7 months and then FIR was lodged. 6. A boy of 12 years would commit rape with a girl two years elder to him and continue to commit such acts for months together appears to be absurd and unnatural story. There is sufficient material available on record to show that under some wrong impression and as a result of mis-advice FIR was lodged against the petitioner but real culprit also managed to escape from the clutches of the investigation. 7. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submits that charge sheet has been filed in juvenile Court against the petitioner that contains a prima facie evidence of rape against the petitioner, hence at this stage proceedings should not and cannot be quashed. Rather it appears to be a matter of trial and truth can be revealed in trial Court at proper stage. 8. On careful perusal of charge sheet, it appears that story of commission of rape by a boy of 12 years for a period of 7-8 months with a girl who is two years elder to him, who immediately disowned the name of petitioner after lodging FIR and tried to narrate name of culprit to the prosecution agency but could not succeed to impress the prosecution agency so that real culprit can be made accused in the case, is an absurd and unnatural version. 9. In such a situation, on the basis of such allegations, continuation of procceding of rape against the petitioner, who is juvenile, is totally unwarranted and is an instance of abuse of process of law. Even assuming the contents of FIR true, it is difficult to hold that charge of rape can be presumed against the petitioner because at relavant time the petitioner was aged 12 years only, that too was two years younger to the prosecutrix. 10. As discussed above, this petition is allowed and FIR and charge sheet dependent on it, is hereby quashed.