Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1734 (RAJ)

Manoj Kumaria Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan

2014-10-29

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.235/2013 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Srigangangar for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned FIR as well as the case diary. 3. As per the facts available on record it is evident that the petitioner was having affairs with the complainants daughter Sushri Suman. He married her on 25.8.2013. It appears that the some disputes arose between the parties owing to the said affairs and the petitioner filed an FIR No.421/2013 against the complainant party on 7.8.2013. In the meantime, the impugned FIR No.235/2013 came to be filed against the petitioner at the Woman Police Station Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 I PC. The allegation as set out in the FIR is that the petitioner caught hold of-hand of Sushri Renu, the sister of Suman with whom, the petitioner subsequently married. 4. The Investigating Officer after investigation has concluded that the offences under Sections 354, 323 IPC and 11/12 of POCSO Act are made out against the petitioner. The offence under Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act is bailable. So far as the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, the highest allegation against the petitioner is that he caught hold of the hand of the girl. Whether or not such act would be covered within the mischief of the phrase "outraging modesty" of the girl would be for the trial Court to examine at the appropriate stage. Prima-facie, even if the prosecution allegations are accepted as true on the face value, then act of the accused would be covered under Section 354A of the IPC, which is bailable. Thus, all the allegations against the petitioner constitute bailable offences. 5. The accused is given liberty to submit a representation to the i Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in light of the totality of facts before reaching at any conclusion. If he concludes that charge-sheet should be filed in the matter, he shall intimate the accused about the date of filing of charge-sheet. 5. The accused is given liberty to submit a representation to the i Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in light of the totality of facts before reaching at any conclusion. If he concludes that charge-sheet should be filed in the matter, he shall intimate the accused about the date of filing of charge-sheet. In order to ensure presence of the accused during trial, he is directed to appear before the Magistrate on the date so intimated to him by the Investigating Officer for filing of the charge-sheet. Upon his appearance before the trial Court, he shall be released on furnishing bail and bonds to the trial courts satisfaction. 6. The misc. petition is disposed of as such.Petition disposed of. *******