JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]: 1] This Petition is filed with multiple prayers, however, the main prayer is for quashing First Information Report registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar vide C.R.No. 380/2008, dated 20.12.2008, filed by Sagunabai – Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. By way of amendment, the petitioner has added further prayer for quashing charge sheet dated 15.01.2009, numbered as 18/2009, filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, pending as STC No. 29/2009. 2] It appears that, during pendency of this Petition, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), is in force and as a result further proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 380/2008, have not been proceeded further. It further appears that, this Court issued 'Rule' on 18th November, 2009. The Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3] It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner and his wife are the Doctors by profession, and practicing at Ahmednagar. They have participated in various social and cultural activities in the District. The First Information Report lodged against the petitioner, and the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the said First Information Report, are on the face of it, mala fide, actuated with ill will and filed with a view to wreck vengeance and private vendetta by the complainant. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on 18.12.2008, at about 4.45 p.m. while Dr. Prakash Kankaria was sitting in his consulting room and checking the patients, he heard the commotion at reception center out side the consulting room, and it was noticed that, one unknown person has thrown telephone receiver on the ground and was talking loudly with the receptionist. Before the petitioner could inquire into the matter about the behaviour of the said person, the said person all of a sudden entered in the consulting room and gave fist blows on the face and person of the petitioner, abused him in filthy language and damaged the furniture in the Hospital. Before the petitioner could inquire into the matter about the behaviour of the said person, the said person all of a sudden entered in the consulting room and gave fist blows on the face and person of the petitioner, abused him in filthy language and damaged the furniture in the Hospital. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on inquiry by the petitioner with the said person, the said person made grievance about charging of fees of Rs.100/- on each and every visit, and as the case papers were not prepared by the receptionist for non payment of Rs.100/-, he was annoyed, after aforesaid incident said person without disclosing his identity along with his wife i.e. complainant, left the Hospital immediately. Thus, there was no question of checking complainant by the petitioner nor the payment was received as per the procedure adopted by the Hospital at the reception center, and the entire episode occurred due to mishebaviour and misconduct of the person concerned. 4] It is the further case of the petitioner that, on 18.12.2008 at about 6.05 p.m., petitioner went to Kotwali Police Station and lodged the complaint about the aforesaid incident. On the basis of said complaint, offence was registered vide Crime No.379/2008 for the offences under Section 452, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against said unknown person and Respondent no.2, resident of Kapurwadi, District Ahmednagar. It is the further case of the petitioner that, Police arrived at the Hospital and prepared the panchanama of the scene of the occurrence, however, although several patients were present in the consulting room, where petitioner sits and checks the patients, their statements could not be recorded by the police as they have left the place of the incident out of fear. Apart from the patients, few other persons belonging to some organizations or institutions were also present as the petitioner is attached with social activities. In fact, one Suresh Kshirsagar, who runs medical store in the premises rescued the petitioner from assault from said person, however, Police till the date of filing the Petition failed to record the statement of said person. In the meanwhile, Police took the search of both the accused at Kapurwadi and elsewhere but failed to trace them and they were absconding, and therefore could not be arrested for two three days after the incident. In the meanwhile, Police took the search of both the accused at Kapurwadi and elsewhere but failed to trace them and they were absconding, and therefore could not be arrested for two three days after the incident. News in respect of assault on petitioner and damage of the Hospital by the said accused spread in the city and all the Doctors led the representation to the District Superintendent of Police and requested for arrest and punishment of the accused, as such incident between the Doctors and patients are on increase and medical practitioner did not find it safe to treat the patients in such atmosphere. 5] It is the further case of the petitioner that, on 20.12.2008, the complainant i.e. respondent No.2, claiming to be wife of Mahadeo Bhagat, aged 21 years, lodged the complaint vide Crime No.280/2008, making allegations against the petitioner under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, said complaint is false, fabricated and made with vengeance and out of private vendetta. It is the further case of the petitioner that, petitioner filed the complaint on 18.12.2008, just as counter blast to the said complaint, false complaint is filed on 20.12.2008, making therein unsustainable allegations. 6] It is the further case of the petitioner that, on 24.12.2008 at about 2.30 p.m. when the petitioner was in his consulting room with patients, above mentioned Mahadev Parasram Bhagat and his 20 to 25 associates unauthorizedly and forcefully made the entry in the consulting room of the Hospital and assaulted the petitioner with fist blows and broken the glass furniture and gave slogans against him. They were saying that, ‘Sambhaji Brigade Chi Jay Ho’. They have forced the petitioner to come out of the Hospital and took him to Manik Chowk where they have thrown black oil on his person and face, garlanded him with chappals and boots, and gave slogans as aforesaid and abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, petitioner was paraded from the place of his Hospital to the main market where it seems an arrangement was made of the videographers and photographers including reporters of the newspapers. After giving slogans for some time, all these persons ran away when the police arrived at the spot. Thereafter, petitioner was paraded from the place of his Hospital to the main market where it seems an arrangement was made of the videographers and photographers including reporters of the newspapers. After giving slogans for some time, all these persons ran away when the police arrived at the spot. It is the further case of the petitioner that, petitioner lodged the complaint of the said incident vide Crime No.387/2008 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 395, 385, 342, 427, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 37 (1) (3) against the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 and unknown persons. 7] It is the further case of the petitioner that, in pursuant to the alleged Crime No.387/2008, the investigation was set in motion and various accused persons were arrested by the Police. The petitioner has also made allegation against the then District Superintendent of Police. 8] In pursuance to the notice received by the respondents in the present Petition, respondent No.1 has filed detailed affidavit denying therein allegations made against the Police Officers. It is also stated in the said affidavit in reply that, the investigation has been done properly in accordance with the procedure established, and therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that, the investigation is not done in a proper manner. It is also stated that, since the charge sheet is already filed, and the allegations made in the First Information Report by the complainant against the petitioner can be tasted during trial, this Court may dismiss the Petition. The respondent No.1 has placed on record copy of the charge sheet along with material collected by the prosecution agency during the course of investigation. 9] The respondent No.13 has also filed affidavit in reply denying allegations, it is stated in the said affidavit in reply that, the investigation has been done in a proper manner, and there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that, the respondents have not conducted investigation in a proper manner. 10] The respondent No.14 has also filed affidavit in reply denying the allegations. The respondent No.12 has also filed affidavit in reply denying the allegations, stating therein that, the allegations in the Petition are totally false and frivolous, and made with an ulterior motive by keeping grudge in mind. 10] The respondent No.14 has also filed affidavit in reply denying the allegations. The respondent No.12 has also filed affidavit in reply denying the allegations, stating therein that, the allegations in the Petition are totally false and frivolous, and made with an ulterior motive by keeping grudge in mind. The Police Authority have impartially, fearlessly and without any pressure investigated the three crimes, and filed charge sheets after due investigation. Therefore, it is prayed that, Petition may be dismissed. 11] The respondent Nos.4 to 10 have filed affidavit in reply denying the allegations stating therein other proceedings pending against the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum. The First Information Report bearing Crime No.03/2007 as per Section 4, 5 [A] and 16 of the Bombay Entertainment Act with the M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar, has been registered alleging that, the petitioner who is a Proprietor of ‘Saiban’, has unauthorizedly and illegally without obtaining the requisite license, has started an entertainment activity. It is also alleged that, the petitioner has evaded the entertainment tax without the entry tickets being approved by the District Magistrate. In that case, charge sheet is already filed, there is also reference to the pending case against the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum. It is also stated that, the petitioner has lodged false complaint against the respondents. It is further stated that, prima facie offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is disclosed against the petitioners, as per the allegations made in the complaint dated 20.12.2008 filed by the respondent No.2, and in the said case, charge sheet is filed, and therefore, this Court may not entertain this Petition filed by the petitioner. 12] The respondent Nos. 2 i.e. complainant, 3 and 11 have filed affidavit in reply denying allegations in the Petition. It is stated in para No.11 that, the Petition suffers from suppression of material fact. It is stated that, in the First Information Report that, the petitioner seeks to quash the investigation, which is already complete and charge sheet is filed on 15.01.2009. However, the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed the said fact in the Petition, which is filed on 29.01.2009. It is further stated that, suppressing the said material fact, the petitioner has obtained the interim relief from this Court. It is further stated that, it is on this count itself, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. However, the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed the said fact in the Petition, which is filed on 29.01.2009. It is further stated that, suppressing the said material fact, the petitioner has obtained the interim relief from this Court. It is further stated that, it is on this count itself, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. 13] It is stated in para No. 12 of the reply that, the petitioner has committed a grave offence of outraging the modesty of woman. Moreover, the gravity of offence is more particularly in view of the fact that, there was fiduciary relation of Doctor and patient in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. It is further stated that, the petitioner is trying to take advantage of his name and reputation in the society, and thereby trying to influence the investigation. It is further stated that, respondent nos.2, 3 and 11 are in no way concerned with the alleged acts as complained by the petitioner. It is further stated that, in fact, the complaints filed by the petitioner are false and frivolous, and the same are filed only to give a counter blast to the complaint filed by the respondent No.2. It is further stated that, merely because the complaint is filed by the respondent No.2 after 10 days, does not mean that, the same is false. It is further stated that, looking to the reputation of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 was afraid to file the complaint immediately. However, the petitioner himself anticipating that, there might be a complaint filed against him, in view of his shameful behaviour, filed a false complaint against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 14] It is stated in para No.13 of the reply that, the allegations made by the petitioner in the Petition, as well as two complaints filed by the petitioner are totally false and the same are made only to be in the limelight rightly or wrongly. It is further stated that, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court, and it would be in the interest of justice to allow the police machinery to proceed with the investigation. It is further stated that, the petitioner being wealthy person, cannot claim to be exempted from the rigors of law, and no one is above the law. It is further stated that, the petitioner being wealthy person, cannot claim to be exempted from the rigors of law, and no one is above the law. It is further stated that, from the contentions raised in the Petition itself goes to show that, the petitioner is seeking the quashment of the complaint only on the ground that, he is having reputation in the society and that he is a Doctor. It is further stated that, merely because the petitioner is a wealthy person and known to many people would not entitle him for the quashment of the complaint. It is further stated that, even prima facie reading of the complaint, the ingredients of the Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code are made out and the complaint needs to be investigated by the Competent Authority. 15] It is stated in para No.14 of the reply that, there is no case made out by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint. Moreover, the investigation is not over, and it was the fear of the petitioner that, upon investigation his misdeed would come to light, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is further stated that, if after investigation the police machinery find that, the complaint is false, such report can be filed by the Investigating Officer, so also after investigation, the petitioner has also a remedy to avail for discharge if no material is found against the petitioner. It is further stated that, the Petition is premature, and therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 16] The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder in reply to different affidavit in replies filed by the respondents. 17] As already observed, in the present case, main concern is about the First Information Report lodged against the petitioner being Crime No. 280/2008, by the respondent No.2. So far as offence registered by the petitioner is concerned, during the course of hearing of the Petition, it is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in Crime No. 379/2008 case is being tried by the trial Court and recording of evidence is in progress. 18] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and submits that, First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner, is an afterthought and belatedly filed after 10 days of the alleged incident. 18] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and submits that, First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner, is an afterthought and belatedly filed after 10 days of the alleged incident. It is submitted that, the petitioner lodged First Information Report against the respondent No.2 and her husband on 18.12.2008, and to counter blast the said First Information Report, the First Information Report is lodged by the respondent No.2, on 20.12.2008. It is submitted that, on the ground of delay alone in lodging the First Information Report, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. it is submitted that, even if the entire allegations in the First Information Report and material collected during the course of investigation is taken into consideration, in the first place, no offence is disclosed against the petitioner, and secondly, said material is not sufficient and reliable so as to try the case against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and submits that, First Information Report is lodged with mala fide intention, and the allegations in the First Information Report are absurd, inherently improbable and are out of malice, and therefore, by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the F.I.R. And further proceedings deserve to be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 251 and submits that, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code so as to quash the First Information Report since allegations therein are tainted with mala fide. 19] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further placed reliance in the case of S.Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Anr., [2010] 5 SCC 600 and in particular para 25 and 28 thereof. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further placed reliance in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, AIR 1998 SC 128 [1] and also in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors. 2005 [1] SCC 122. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further placed reliance in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, AIR 1998 SC 128 [1] and also in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors. 2005 [1] SCC 122. Therefore, relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein, relevant provisions and the Judgments cited supra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition deserves to be allowed. 20] On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 11 submits that, the facts, as alleged, in the First Information Report will have to be proved which only can be done in the course of regular trial. It is submitted that, the prosecution has collected sufficient material for trial. The respondent No.2 is ready to step into the witness box so as to prove the allegations made in the First Information Report. In support of the afore-stated contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 11 pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma & another Vs. Monica and others, 2014 [3] SCC 383, C.P.Subhash Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Ors., 2013 [2] Scale 19 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012 AIR SCW 5333 [1]. So far as delay in lodging the First Information Report is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 11 placed reliance in the case of Sri Narayan Saha and another Vs. State of Tripura, AIR 2005 SC 1452 [1]. It is further submitted that, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bablu, 2015 ALL SCR 622 held that, in case of hurt and outraging modesty of woman, it is duty of the Court to impose appropriate sentence. Therefore, relying upon the affidavit in reply, the relevant provisions and the Judgments of the Supreme Court cited supra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 11 submits that, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, relying upon the affidavit in reply, the relevant provisions and the Judgments of the Supreme Court cited supra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 11 submits that, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. 21] We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents, with their able assistance, we have carefully perused the pleadings in the Petition, annexure thereto, charge sheet and also its accompaniments. 2, 3 and 11 submits that, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. 21] We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents, with their able assistance, we have carefully perused the pleadings in the Petition, annexure thereto, charge sheet and also its accompaniments. At this juncture, it would be apposite to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant portions – allegations in the First Information Report, which, according to the complainant, would attract ingredients of section 354 of the Indian Penal Code: le{k iksyhl Bk.;kr gtj gksowu fQ;kZn fygwu nsrs dh] eh dkiqjokMh ;sFks jkg.kkjh vlwu ek>h vkbZ ukes vafcdk nksu Hkkm o nksu cfg.kh v’kk vlwu rs osxGs jkgrkr- ek>s yXu 29@04@02 e/;s dkiwjokMh ;sFkhy egknso ijljke Hkxr ;kaps’kh >kys vlwu eyk nksu eqys vkgsr eh b;Rrk ngkoh i;Zar dkiwjokMh ;sFksp f’k{k.k ?ksrys vkgs eyk nksu rs vMhp o"kkZiklwu MksG;kapk =kl vlY;kus ek>s MksGs nq[kr vlY;kus ;kiwohZ eh MkWdkils ;kapsdMs rlsp vkMdj p"esokys ;kaPksdMs mipkj ?ksryk o p"ek lrr okijyk ijarq eyk cjs okVr ulY;kus eh ekf.kd pkSd v-uxj ;sFkhy MkW izdk’k dkdafj;k ;kPa;kdMs mipkjklkBh fn-25@11@08 jksth rikl.kh dsyh- R;kauh 15 fnolkps xksG;k vkS"k/ks fnys o R;kuarj fn-10@12@08 jksth nqikjh 1-30 rs 2-00 ok ps njE;ku ek>k uacj ykxY;kus eh MkW-izdk’k dkadfj;k ;kaps dsfcu nq-1-30 rs 2-00 ok- xsys- MkWDVjus eyk MksGs rikl.kh e’khuoj xsys o rsFks cloys o R;kauh leksj clqu MksGs psd d:u eyk lkafxrys dh] fMfyojhps osGh rqEgkyk dacjnq[kh] iksVnq[kh fdaok vksVhpk =kl rlsp ch-ih- =kl >kyk gksrk dk; R;koj eh R;kauk ukgh vls lkafxrys] R;kuarj MkWdkadfj;k gs R;kaP;k tkxso:u o:u ekb;k ikBhekxs mHks jkfgys o R;kuah ikBhekxuw ekb;k Cykmte/;s gkr s?kkryk eyk okVys dh rs Nkrhps Bksds psd djr vlrhy ijarq R;kauh ek>s Lrukps [kkyh gkr ?kkryk o rlsp MkO;k gkrkus ek>h lkMh o ijdj oj d:u fudje/;s vkr gkr ?kkyqu ek>k fou;Hkax dsyk- R;keqGs eh ?kkcjys R;kposGh ,d O;Drh ckgs:u njoktk m?kMwu yksVyk ijarq MkW- us R;kl eyk fopkjys f’kok; vkr ;k;ps ukgh vls lkaxr vlrkukp eh ckgsj xsyss o Qksuo:u ek>s ofMykua k nok[kkU;kr cksywu ?ksrys- ekb;k ofMykapk eks-ua- 9922368309 vlk vkgs- g;k Qksuoj eh Qksu d:u ekb;k ofMykauk cksykowu ?ksrys gksrs o R;kaps lkscr eh ?kjh fu?kwu xsys- R;kuarj la/;kdkGh lnjph gdhdr ek>s uo&;kl lkafxryh] R;kuarj ek>s uo&;kus eyk letwr d:u lkafxrys dh] ,[kkns osGh rq ?kkc:u tkos o rq>k ch-ih- ok<kok Eg.kqu vls dsys vlkos- ijarq eh R;kauk MkW- us ek>s’kh vlH; oRkZu dsys vkgs- R;kuarj rk-16@12@08 jksth nq-1-00 rs 1-30 ok- ps lqekjkl ysMht MkW-lq/kk izdk’k dkda fj;k ;kpas dsfcu e/;s eh o ek>k uojk vls tkoqu R;kauk ngk rkj[ksyk ?kMysyk izdkj lkafxryk rsOgk R;kauh MkWizdk’k dkadfj;k ;kauk Qksu d:u cksywu ?ksrys] o fopkjiwl dsyh] rsOgk MkW-izdk’k ;kauh rqepk dkgh rjh xSjlet >kyk eh vls dkgh dsys ukgh- R;koj lq/kk dkadfj;k ;kauh eyk MkW- ps rksaMkr ekjk Eg.kwu lkafxrysus eh R;kauk ekj.ksps vxksnj ekb;k uo&;kus nksu FkkiMk ekjY;k- R;kaurj vkEgh uojk ck;dks nks?ks nok[kkU;krwu fu?kwu xsyks- R;kuarj fn-18@12@08 jksth ek>k uojk ;kauh MkW-izdk’k dkadfj;k ;kaP;k nok[kkU;kr tkouw ekjgk.k dsyh ckcr ?kjh ;souw lkfaxrys- The true translated version in English of afore mentioned extract from the First Information Report duly translated by the official translator of the registry of the High Court, reads thus: By remaining present in the police station I am giving this complaint in writing that I am residing at Kapurwadi. I have a mother namely Ambika, two brothers and two sisters. They reside separately. I was married to Mahadeo Parasram Bhagat, resident of Kapurwadi on 29-04-2002. I have two sons. I have completed my education upto 10th at Kapurwadi. I have problem of eye sight since last two to two and half years and due to this my head was paining. Previously I have taken treatment of it with Doctor Kapse and I have taken treatment from Adkar spectacles and used it continuously. But I was not feeling well hence I went to the Hospital of Dr. Prakash Kankkriya at Manik Chowk, Ahmednagar on 25-11-2000 and checked my eyes. He gave me tablets and medicines for fifteen days. Thereafter on 10-12-2000 at about 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. when my turn came I entered in the cabin of Dr.Prakash Kankariya. Doctor took me on Eyes Checking Machine and sat me there and by sitting before me he checked my eyes and said me that “during the period of delivery were you facing problems of waist pain, stomach pain or pelvic pain and B.P.? Thereupon I told him as “no”. Thereafter Dr.Kankriya left his place and stood behind me and he put his hand into my blouse. I thought that he was checking heart beats. But he put his hand below my breast and similarly with his left hand he pulled my Saree and petticoat [Parkar] up and entered his hand into my knicker and outraged my modesty. Due to this I apprehended and at the same time one person opened the door from outside. While the said Doctor asked him not to come in without his permission I went away and made phone to my father and called him to the hospital. My father’s mobile number is 9922368309. On this phone I made a call and called him and went home with him. Thereafter in the evening I narrated the whole incident to my husband. My husband explained to me that possibly because you would get frightened or if your B.P. could raise therefore Doctor must have behaved like this. But I told him that the Doctor has behaved indecently with me. Thereafter on 16/12/08 in the afternoon at about 1.00 – 1.30 we ( I and my husband ) went to the cabin of lady doctor Mrs. Sudha Prakash Kankariya and narrated the incident that occurred on the 10th. But I told him that the Doctor has behaved indecently with me. Thereafter on 16/12/08 in the afternoon at about 1.00 – 1.30 we ( I and my husband ) went to the cabin of lady doctor Mrs. Sudha Prakash Kankariya and narrated the incident that occurred on the 10th. Then, she made a phone call to Dr.Prakash Kankariya and called him to enquire about the incident. At that time Dr.Prakash Kankariya said “there may be some misunderstanding and I have done nothing of this sort”. Thereupon Sudha Kankariya said me to slap on the face of doctor and before I could do so, my husband slapped him twice. Thereafter we husband and wife went away from the hospital. After that on 18/12/08 my husband went to Dr.Prakash Kankariya’s hospital and made an assault and told about it after coming home. 22] If the allegations in the First Information Report are read in its entirety, prima facie there is no room for doubt that, the said allegation needs investigation, and accordingly, after investigation the concerned Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet before the Competent Court. 23] The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, there was 10 days delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the said First Information Report is an afterthought, inasmuch as, the said is filed to give counter blast to the First Information Report filed by the petitioner on 18th December, 2008, against the husband of the respondent No.2 and also against her. If the accompaniment of the charge sheet are perused carefully, so far visit of the respondent No.2 to the Hospital on the date of incident i.e. on 10th December, 2008, is not only stated by the complainant herself, but Kum. Sujata Bhosale at the relevant time working as receptionist in the petitioner’s Hospital in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20.12.2008 stated that, she is working in the said Hospital from last two years. Her duty hours on 10th December, 2008 were 10.20 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. On that day, the respondent No.2 i.e., complainant, resident of Kapurwadi came in the hospital at 11.00 a.m. and paid Rs.100/- towards medical check up fees, she was sitting in the cabin of the patients and in between 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. she went inside the cabin of the petitioner for check up. However, she sated that, it is not possible to watch what is going on inside the cabin due to dark glasses, and unless Doctor calls the employee inside the cabin, it was not permissible to go inside the cabin. Therefore, the statement of Sujata Bhosale clearly confirms the fact that, the complainant went to the Hospital of the petitioner on 10.12.2008, and as a matter of fact she went inside the petitioner’s cabin in between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. The said version is also confirmed by the other employees namely; Santosh Dharam, who was working as Office Assistant in the Hospital of the petitioner, at the relevant time and also by another employee namely Priya Sontakke. Therefore, it is not the case that, the complainant did not go to the Hospital on the date of incident, and as a matter of fact inside the cabin of the petitioner, and baseless allegations are made in the complaint. The prosecution has also collected material to demonstrate that, the complainant and her husband even on 16.12.2008 went in the Hospital to meet wife of the petitioner to tell about incident dated 10.12.2008. 24] As already observed, if the allegations in the First Information Report are considered in its entirety, certainly, ingredients of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted. The allegations in the complaint are also confirmed by the other relatives of the respondent No. 2. It appears that, in complaint itself, the cell number of the father of the respondent No.2 is mentioned. The father of the respondent No.2 has also confirmed that, on the day of incident, as alleged in the complainant, incident had taken place and same was narrated by the complainant to him. If the material placed on record is considered in its entirety, certainly the prosecution has collected sufficient material so as to try the case. The Supreme Court in the case of the State of H.P. Vs. Mango Ram, [2000] 7 SCC 224 in para No.16 observed that, the evidence should have been appreciated on broader probabilities and not to be carried out by insignificant contradictions. Therefore, whenever there are allegations of sexual assault, the Court will have to appreciate the evidence on broader probabilities. The Supreme Court in the case of the State of H.P. Vs. Mango Ram, [2000] 7 SCC 224 in para No.16 observed that, the evidence should have been appreciated on broader probabilities and not to be carried out by insignificant contradictions. Therefore, whenever there are allegations of sexual assault, the Court will have to appreciate the evidence on broader probabilities. When the respondent No.2 herself is ready to step into the witness box to lead evidence in support of her allegations in the First Information Report, the quashing of First Information Report or further proceedings based upon the said First Information Report, would amount to adding to the injury to the victim, in spite of the fact that, the allegations in the First Information Report are found triable in the light of material collected by the Investigating Officer. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bablu held that, the social impact of the crime where it relates to offences against women involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency, which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. 25] So far delay in lodging First Information Report is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shree Kant Shekari, 2004 ALL MR [Cri.] 3145 [S.C.], held thus: “18. The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the Court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so, the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle.” The Supreme Court has also considered the delay in filing the First Information Report in the case of Harpalsingh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 and also in the case of Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 2472 and held that, merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly does not raise inference that the complaint was false. In the case of Sri Narayan Saha cited [supra] Supreme Court held that, in rape cases reluctance to go to police is because of society’s attitude towards such woman. It casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathy. Therefore, the Supreme Court in that case held that, merely because complaint was lodged less than promptly, does not make complaint false. 26] The point of delay raised, is a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore, during trial the prosecution would get opportunity to explain the delay. 27] Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, upon considering the material collected by the prosecution agency in its entirety, it will have to be held that, there is sufficient material so as to proceed against the petitioner. Since the complainant has made serious allegations in the First Information Report, which has to be considered sensitively, and the facts, as alleged, in the complaint will have to be proved, which can only be done in the course of a regular trial. It is not possible for this Court to appreciate the evidence on record and find out evidential value of the material collected by the prosecution, while exercising the writ jurisdiction. 27] In the light of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the Petition is devoid of any merits, and same stands dismissed. Sd/- [A.M.BADAR, J.] Sd/- [S.S.SHINDE, J.] After pronouncement of the Judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays continuation of the interim relief, which was in force during pendency of the Petition. Such prayer is, vehemently, opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Sd/- [A.M.BADAR, J.] Sd/- [S.S.SHINDE, J.] After pronouncement of the Judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays continuation of the interim relief, which was in force during pendency of the Petition. Such prayer is, vehemently, opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. However, in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to continue the interim relief, which was in force during the pendency of the Petition, up to 24th April, 2015. Accordingly, interim order shall remain in force till 24th April, 2015.