Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 16 (MP)

Dinesh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2019-01-03

ANAND PATHAK

body2019
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 207/2017 by Police Station Ambah, District Morena for offence under sections 376 and 506 of IPC as well as for quashment of criminal proceedings pending in consequence to registration of FIR. 2. As per the prosecution story, a complaint was made by respondent No. 3 on 10.4.2017 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior with the allegations that she is resident of Ambah (Hingawali) and at present residing at Gwalior and preparing for competitive examinations. When she was 14 years of age and was living at Ambah and studying for her class 10th examination, in year 2010, a girl named Sweta Sharma took her to I.A.N. Computer College at around 9 a.m. where her boy friend Dinesh Sharma met her and pushed her inside and closed the door and raped her. When she started crying, the petitioner cut his thumb and put his blood on her forehead saying that he will marry her. Thereafter, when she told petitioner that she will tell her family about this incident, petitioner threatened her of dire consequences, therefore, she made a complaint after seven years. It is further submitted that her parents got her married but due to the said incident, she could not accept her husband and therefore, residing at Gwalior for study purpose. 3. Case was registered by Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior but since the place of incident was Ambah, District Morena, matter was referred to Police Station Ambah, District Morena wherefrom after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR suffers from extreme delay and latches. Date of registration of FIR is 21.4.2017; whereas, the incident has been narrated of year 2010 without referring any month and date. This itself renders the story of prosecution improbable and an afterthought. 5. It is further submitted that prosecutrix's High School Examination Certificate (10 + 2) indicates that she completed here 10th in year 2006 in which mark sheet contains her date of birth as 1st February, 1990, therefore, she was 20 years of age at the relevant point of time in year 2010 and she was 16 years of age when she completed her 10th. Prosecutrix has referred her age as 14 years at the time of incident, whereas, she ought to have been 16 years of age at that time. The said anomaly itself takes the case into doubt. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred the statement recorded under section 161 of CrPC of prosecutrix's father-Poojaram Sharma, who narrated the events while submitting that prosecutrix is his elder daughter and is a girl of mercurial temper. She was in friendship with one Jaiprakash Sharma who used to write love letters which she did not like and since accused was friend of said Jaiprakash Sharma and sided with his friend when they were studying, therefore, to take revenge, she fastened the liability over present petitioner. Prosecutrix deserted her husband also because of the quarrel took place between them. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. 7. Learned PP for the respondents No. 1 and 2 State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by submitting that charge-sheet has already been filed and same would unfold the truth. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Heard. 9. From perusal of FIR and the statements recorded under section 161 of CrPC by the Police, it appears that prosecutrix has narrated the evidence of year 2010 when she was studying in class 10th and was aged 14 years but the same is not supported by documents referred by the petitioner as mark-sheet of class 10th shows the date of birth of prosecutrix as 1.2.1990, which means in year 2006 she passed her class 10th examination, therefore, in year 2010, she was not minor and not studying in class 10th. Besides that, she referred her age as 14 years, whereas as per the mark-sheet her date of birth is 1.2.1990, therefore, in year 2010 she must have been 20 years of age. That fact also belies the statement of prosecutrix. Beside that, there is inordinate delay in referrering the case to the police by filing complaint which itself creates a doubt about veracity of offence. Her statement before JMFC unfolds some different story and improved version. 10. It is true that on the basis of delayed FIR allegations cannot be rejected but here the allegations do not contain right factual contours. Her statement before JMFC unfolds some different story and improved version. 10. It is true that on the basis of delayed FIR allegations cannot be rejected but here the allegations do not contain right factual contours. Prosecutrix nowhere referred in the FIR and in police statement about the date and month of year 2010 when the incident happened and about the exact act committed by petitioner. The whole narration of events indicate that the complaint has been made in a very casual and slipshod manner only to falsely implicate the petitioner. The allegation of rape is a serious offence and it cannot be levelled in such a casual manner that to bereft of proper facts and proper course of events. Such prosecution cannot be countenanced. It amounts to vexatious litigation meant for harassment. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v.. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335, laid down the parameters for quashment of complaint. Instant case when tested on such anvil then interference is inevitable. 11. Therefore, in the cumulative analysis and considered opinion of this Court, the case cannot be allowed to stand. 12. Resultantly, petition is allowed and FIR registered agains the petitioner at Crime No. 207/2017 at Police Station Ambah, District Morena for offence under section 376,506 ofIPC as well as criminal proceedings emerging therefrom are hereby quashed. 13. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.