JUDGMENT : Present petition has been preferred against the order dated 20/12/2004 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 145/2004 affirming the order 30/04/2004 of trial court framing charges against the petitioners under section 498A/34 IPC. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 04/11/2003 respondent no.2 lodged a report at police station Ranjhi, Jabalpur at Crime No. 575/2003 under section 498A/34 IPC against the petitioners alleging that on 01/11/2003 at about 8.00 pm, petitioners asked and forced her to leave her matrimonial house just after 13th day of death of her husband. Petitioner no.1 was the mother, petitioner no.2 and 4 were the brothers and petitioner no.3 and 5 were the sister-in-laws of her deceased husband. 3. Husband of respondent no.2 died of old ailment on 19/10/2009. At the time of death of her husband, respondent no.2 had gone to the house of her parents in West Bengal. Fact of death of her husband was informed by telegram to her by the petitioners. Police Ranjhi, after investigation preferred charge sheet in the court of JMFC. 4. In turn JMFC framed charge under section 498A IPC. 5. Aforesaid order of framing of charge was assailed by the petitioners in Sessions Court. Vide impugned order Sessions Court also affirmed the order of framing of charge. 6. Present petition has been preferred on the grounds that in FIR no ingredients of section 498A IPC are narrated against the petitioners. Immediately after death of her husband this police case got registered to create pressure on the petitioners just to black mail them to extract more and more money. During life time of her husband, no complaint was ever made alleging cruelty and harassment against the petitioners. On 02/11/2003 a post office deposit of Rs.50,000/- was handed to the brother of the respondent vide Annexure P-3, even then having felt dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount, a false report has been lodged by way of present case. For a period of last 8 months from the date of incident, respondent used to live in her parents house in West Bengal. Husband of respondent no.2 was a patient of asthama and needed personal care and attention which she had never extended. For a period of last 8 months from the date of incident, respondent used to live in her parents house in West Bengal. Husband of respondent no.2 was a patient of asthama and needed personal care and attention which she had never extended. An old aged mother of more than 72 years, two brothers who are government servants and are living in different cities and their wives have been falsely implicated in this matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on (2009)10 SCC 184 (Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti) submits that main dispute is of partition and share of money of joint family in the event of death of the husband and amount given i.e Rs.50,000/- found to be too less was the cause of FIR in this case. During course of arguements, it is further submitted that respondent no.2 had entered into re-marriage and has became totally reluctant of the proceedings of the case and proceedings of this petition as well. 8. Petitioners never denied due rights of respondent no.2 as accrued to her as a result of untimely death of her husband, but registration of criminal case is an abuse of process of law. Civil remedies are available for that purpose to her. Petitioners always keen and willing to give sufficient amount in this regard. Further placing reliance on (2009)14 SCC 244 (Sunder Babu & others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive of maintaining the pressure on the family members of matrimonial house soon after death of her husband so that widow/respondent can fetch more and more money. Hence such a mala fide proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. 9. Per Contra, learned Panel Lawyer submits that even if prima facie evidence is produced to presume that offence has been committed, then charge shall be framed, and support the impugned order. 10. On careful perusal of text of written report on which FIR is based, it is apparently clear that allegations of demand of dowry are vague because it covers the duration for last 4-5 years, alleging continuous demand of 2-3 tola sona and cash. After death of her husband wife/respondent no.2 came back from the house of her parents and attended last rites ceremony and during that period of stay dispute arose for share and partition. 11. After death of her husband wife/respondent no.2 came back from the house of her parents and attended last rites ceremony and during that period of stay dispute arose for share and partition. 11. It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of this petition on behalf of respondent no.2, 6-7 years none had appeared neither in court for hearing nor in mediation proceedings despite the name of counsel appears in the cause list. 12. FIR appears to have been lodged for maintaining pressure so that sufficient amount as a share can be given to the respondent no.2 in the event of death of her husband and petitioners are also keen and willing to give her the share as and when demanded, negotiated and settled in the competent forum. Continuation of this proceedings in this back ground renders totally unwarranted would be an abuse of process of law. 13. As discussed above, petition is allowed. Order of framing of charge is quashed but with an understanding that petitioners shall always co-operate the respondent no.2 for giving her share as and when required and demanded by her. Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.:- Present petition has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR dated 26/04/2009 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 26/04/2009 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 infact 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. 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 05/03/1994 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. Such relationship said to be continued for months together and has resulted into preganancy 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. 8. Rather it appears to be a matter of trial and truth can be revealed in trial court at proper stage. 9. 8. Rather it appears to be a matter of trial and truth can be revealed in trial court at proper stage. 9. 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. 10. In such a situation, on the basis of such allegations, continuation of proceeding 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. 11. As discussed above, this petition is allowed and FIR and charge sheet dependent on it, is hereby quashed. Certified copy as per rules.