Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2309 (RAJ)

Rohtash v. State And Anr.

2022-08-25

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: "1. Order dated 29.05.2014 passed by Shri Sanjeev Mago, RHJS, Special Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Sriganganagar, in criminal revision no.1/2014 may be set aside. 2. And order dt.14.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, district Sriganganagar in criminal misc. case no.658/2013 (State v/s Banwari & Ors.) may be set aside." 2. As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, the genesis of the dispute is traceable to the complaint submitted by the respondent No.2-complainant before the learned Trial Court, with the allegation that the offence of rape was committed on her by the accused-petitioners and accused-Om Sabniya. 2.1 It was stated therein that she was married, but had since separated from her husband, and her son was living with her. And that to earn a livelihood, she was working in the house of accused-Rohtash, a Police Constable. And that, one day while the other accused persons were present in the house of accused-Rohtash, they committed forcible sexual intercourse, one by one, on the complainant holding her at knife point. And that, while she attempted to resist by raising an alarm, the accused persons silenced her threatening to kill both, her and her son. And that, she was repeated raped by the accused persons, and under the inducement of the said threat, could not report the same. And that, the same continued for a considerable period of time, however, in 2009, she got pregnant; and upon informing the accused-persons, they forced her to administer certain medicine, as a result of which, she suffered a forced miscarriage and bled heavily from her private parts. 2.2 The said complaint was forwarded by the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Reserve Centre (Aarakshi Kendra), Suratgarh, whereupon a case was registered against the accusedpetitioners; however, after investigation, the police filed a negative final report. The complainant challenged the same by way of a protest petition, by which the learned trial court, vide order dated 02.08.2013, took cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 376 IPC; which the petitioners challenged by filing a revision petition, and was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2013, while remanding the matter back to the learned trial court to pass fresh orders after affording the concerned parties a proper opportunity of hearing. After the remand, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2014, again proceded to take cognizance against the accused-petitioners and accused-Om Prakash for the offence under Section 376 IPC; the same was again challenged by filing a revision petition, which was rejected by the learned revisional court vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners harped upon the fact that the FIR was lodged by the complainant, in connection with the alleged commission of rape, after a huge, inordinate delay of 6-7 years. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the son of the complainant has not supported the version of the complainant, rendered by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the complainant in the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled an allegation that in the vicinity of Suratgarh Police Station, accused-Rohtash, in his house, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, but she has not made any categorical mention about time, year or month, when the alleged rape was committed by the accused. 3.3 Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court gravely erred in not considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on the record and hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent-No.2, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners submitted that the learned courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, what is required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima facie any case is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence, including delay in lodging of the FIR in the present case, are subject matter of trial. 6. This Court also finds that the learned courts below have duly considered the case, and such due consideration and appreciation owing to the stage of the case, is reflected in the well reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, do not merit any interference by this Court. 7. 6. This Court also finds that the learned courts below have duly considered the case, and such due consideration and appreciation owing to the stage of the case, is reflected in the well reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, do not merit any interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, so as to warrant any interference therein. 8. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.