Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2355 (RAJ)

Yogesh Dadhich v. State

2022-09-01

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of FIR No. 254/2019 registered at Police Station Padu Kalan, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 363 & 342 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was absolutely no allegation against the petitioner in the statements rendered by the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus Petition) No. 5/2020. 2.1. Learned counsel further submits that even in case, an allegation was made then it was upto the investigating officer to see as to what would be the consequence of the incident upon the prosecutrix, being minor. 2.2. Learned counsel also submits that on the face of record, once it is established that no incident, as alleged, had happened, the full proof legal parameters applicable in the present case do not warrant continuance of the present proceedings against the petitioner herein. 2.3. Learned counsel further submits that since the prosecutrix was of the age 17 years and 9 months, which is very close to being major, therefore, sufficient credibility ought to be given to her own statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus Petition) No. 5/2020. 2.4. Learned counsel also submits that in case any fact of consensual relationship would have been there, then also the offence under the POCSO Act could have operated, but here, in the present case, any kind of incident or any kind of happening has been completely denied and no allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor along with the investigating officer present in the Court as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submit that at the subsequent stage, the prosecutrix has changed her stands, which has resulted into the predicaments having been arisen in the investigation. They further submit that the prosecutrix was kept with the petitioner for about two months though they do not deny, the prosecutrix and the present petitioner, being exposed to public places. 4. They further submit that the prosecutrix was kept with the petitioner for about two months though they do not deny, the prosecutrix and the present petitioner, being exposed to public places. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. Ordinarily, this Court is extremely hesitant in interfering with a criminal proceeding at the initial stage, but here in the present case, this Court finds that the full proof neutrality valve of legal system is under operation, and consequently, on the face of it, no offence against the present petitioner is made out. The present petitioner himself being a young boy of 24 years shall suffer the trial, in case, this Court does not go by the record, which on the face of it, does not form any kind of criminal offence against the petitioner. 6. Per Section 164 Cr.P.C., who is 17 years 9 months at the time of incident, reads as follows: djhc rhu ekg igys dh ckr gSA eSa vius ?kj fuEcM+h dyka ls ?kqeus ds fy, vius nksLr ;ksxs’k ds lkFk fljMh ds lkabZ ckck ds ;gka x,A ogka ls ?kqedj ge nksuksa fr:ifr ckykth x,A eSa ;ksxs’k ds lkFk fr:ifr ckykth ds ;gka ?kqeus ds ckn gSnjkckn esa eSa ;ksxs’k ds lkFk djhc ,d ekg :dh FkhA fQj eSa gSnjkckn ls okfil iknwdyka Fkkus vk;h] mlds ckn eSa vius ?kj fuEcM+h dyka pyh x;hA blds vykok esjs lkFk dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZA eq>s vksj dqN ugha dguk gSA 7. The order passed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus Petition) No. 5/2020 on 17.01.2020, reads as follows: "The corpus has been produced by Mr. keshar Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector through Mr. Abhishek Purohit assistant to Mr. Farzand Ali, G.A.-cum-A.A.G. Mr. Abhishek Purohit has informed this Court that the corpus has been traced out by the police on 14.01.2020 and thereafter she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Nagaur and as per wish of the corpus, her custody was handed over to her parents. keshar Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector through Mr. Abhishek Purohit assistant to Mr. Farzand Ali, G.A.-cum-A.A.G. Mr. Abhishek Purohit has informed this Court that the corpus has been traced out by the police on 14.01.2020 and thereafter she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Nagaur and as per wish of the corpus, her custody was handed over to her parents. It is submitted that her statements have been recorded by the police as well as the concerned court wherein she has not levelled allegation against anybody and has simply stated that she went with Lokesh @ Yogesh to Hyderabad and stayed there with him and after returning from Hyderabad, she is residing with her parents’ house. In such circumstances, since the corpus has been traced out and at present is living with her parents at her house, this habeas corpus petition preferred on behalf of the father of the corpus is dismissed." 8. On the face of the record, there is no allegation made by the prosecutrix against the present petitioner, and it is a case where she had the safety valve of deposing before the police, the learned trial court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, and by no stretch of imagination, any system can work more full proof than what has worked in the present case for ensuring neutrality of the versions given by the prosecutrix and the prosecution. 9. Though, the dilemma of the prosecution is understandable, but this Court, while traversing in the course of justice, cannot shut its eyes upon the record, which on the face of it, does not reveal any kind of criminal offence or allegation against the present petitioner. The subsequent change in the stands of the prosecutrix or her family members could have gained significance if at the time of rendering the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix was not already in the custody of the parents, but in this case, the prosecutrix levelled no allegation even when she was in the safe custody of her parents from where she was called to depose before the learned trial court and while deposing under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has forthrightly submitted that there was no allegation against the present petitioner. 10. The case falls under the extreme ambit of interference, while adhering to the parameters of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 11. 10. The case falls under the extreme ambit of interference, while adhering to the parameters of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 254/2019 registered at Police Station Padu Kalla, District Nagaur and all other proceedings arising out of the FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of.