ORDER : 1. CRMP No.1276/2022 has been preferred by petitioner – Rajkumar Chandrakar seeking to quash the entire charge-sheet and the proceedings emanating from it, pending before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.156/2022 which relates to Crime No.212/2022 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur for offence under Section 376 and 506 of the IPC, whereas CRMP NO.1277/2022 has been preferred by petitioners – Rajkumar Chandrakar and his son Roshan Chandrakar seeking to quash the entire charge-sheet and the proceedings emanating from it, pending before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.155/2022 which relates to Crime No.210/2022 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur for offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC. Since in the present case, FIRs have been lodged by none other than the daughter-in-law and real sister of petitioner – Rajkumar Chandrakar and the parties being closely related, both the cases are being disposed of by this common order. CRMP No.1276/2022 2. The prosecutrix “R” (considering the allegation, full name is not mentioned), who is living separately from her husband in the house of his real brother i.e. petitioner-Rajkumar Chandrakar and also having one son from her husband aged about 32 years, has lodged FIR on 2.5.2022 at Police Station Seepat alleging that for 30 years petitioner - Rajkumar Chandrakar has continuously sexually exploited her when she was living with him in village Darrabhata and for about last 6 months the petitioner has kept her daughter-in-law “K” (considering the allegation, full name is not mentioned) with him in his house at Mopka and also threatened her. Based upon such allegation, offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC was registered. CRMP No.1277/2022 3. The prosecutrix “S', who is daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar and wife of petitioner No.2-Roshan Chandrakar, has lodged FIR on 1.5.2022 alleging that she got married with petitioner No.2 in the year 2016 and out of such wedlock one son aged about 6 years was born. She has further alleged that petitioner No.1 since 1.5.2021 has continuously sexually exploited her and when she informed the incident to her husband, he also supported the act of petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar. She has also alleged that the petitioners have also shown obscene video to her minor son. Based upon such allegation, offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioners. 4. Mr. She has also alleged that the petitioners have also shown obscene video to her minor son. Based upon such allegation, offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioners. 4. Mr. P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question due to property dispute and just to get the property in their names. In CRMP No.1277/2022, the prosecutrix “S” has executed gift deed in favour of her husband (petitioner No.2) on 7.12.2021 and she has also executed power of attorney in favour of her husband on 23.7.2021 as all the properties have been purchased by petitioner No.1 (father-in-law and brother of the prosecutrix “R”. The nephew of the petitioner No.1 (son of prosecutrix “R”) had filed a divorce petition against daughter-in-law “K” with whom petitioner-Rajkumar Chandrakar is presently residing. So, to defame petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar and daughter-in-law “K” and also to get the property in their own names and to create pressure upon them, false case in similar fashion was lodged by daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1 on 1.5.2022 and sister of petitioner No.1 on 2.5.2022. He would further submit that prior to lodging of such FIR, the prosecutrix (daughter-in-law in CRMP No.1277/2022) had given an information about domestic violence on 29.4.2022 at Police Station Sarkanda, in which the police did not take any action and has given information under Section 155 of the CrPC and no cognizable offence has been made out by Police Station Sarkanda vide No.165/2022 (Annexure P-3), but in a deliberate manner, daughter-in-law and sister of petitioner No.1 have lodged FIRs in another Police Station i.e. Police Station Seepat and have not disclosed the fact that earlier daughter-in-law has given information at Police Station Sarkanda on 29.4.2022, in which the police has not registered any case. Learned counsel also submit that in CRMP No.1276/2022, there is delay of about 30 years in lodging the FIR and even in second case also i.e. CRMP No.1277/2022, FIR was lodged almost after delay of more than one year. Petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar prior to lodging of said FIRs had given a prior intimation about the dispute that his real sister (prosecutrix “R”” and his son after harassing his daughter-in-law “K” ousted from their house. Petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar prior to lodging of said FIRs had given a prior intimation about the dispute that his real sister (prosecutrix “R”” and his son after harassing his daughter-in-law “K” ousted from their house. So, being an elder member of the family, petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar has given shelter to his daughter-in-law “K” at his house at Mopka with the consent of mother, grandparents and maternal uncle of daughter-in-law “K”. He would submit that daughter-in-law “K” had applied under the RTI Act before the Jail Superintendent, Bilaspur to provide her CCTV footage and copy of visiting register as after lodging the FIR, the complainants had gone to meet the petitioners. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Manohar Silawat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Misc. Criminal Case No.4589/2020), decided on 9.6.2022 and submits that considering all the aspects, both the FIRs be quashed and continuance of criminal prosecution amount to abuse of process of law, so it also be quashed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Preetak Singh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainants, would submit that there are sufficient material collected during the investigation for the aforesaid offence and considering the serious allegation of rape, it is not a rarest of rare case in which extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petitions. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petitions. 7. Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix, who are closed relatives of the petitioners and their relations with petitioner-Rajkumar Chandrakar are daughter-in-law and real sister respectively and both are grown-up and married ladies having sufficient maturity and sister of petitioner-Rajkumar Chandrakar also has a son, who has graduated in Engineering having 32 years of age and the circumstances in which both the FIRs were lodged, particularly when daughter-in-law on 29.4.2022 approached another Police Station Sarkanda and not mentioned about any such incident of rape being committed in their house by petitioner - Rajkumar Chandrakar, which was supported by her husband and only allegation about domestic violence was alleged, in which also, the police did not take any cognizance and an information under Section 155 of the CrPC was given and after two days of such information, on 1.5.2022 daughter-in-law “S” lodged FIR at Police Station Seepat and on the next day i.e. on 2.5.2022 sister of petitioner - Rajkumar Chandrakar lodged another FIR at the same Police Station for the same offence. 8. Normally delay in lodging the FIR involving cases of rape would not be fatal, however, as per the facts of the present case, earlier, the daughter-in-law had lodged an FIR for domestic violence wherein there was no whisper regarding sexual assault or rape committed by the petitioner – Rajkumar Chandrakar, though, the victims, while recording their statements, were aware of the said fact. Even the father of daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar was aware of the said fact and she disclosed about the incident to her father Ramakant Chandrakar in November, 2021. However, he (father of the prosecutrix) allowed her daughter to reside in the same house and did not lodge any prompt FIR. As per the defence taken by the petitioner, there was some dispute about the property and about the relation with another daughter-in-law “K” against whom a divorce petition was filed by the real son of the prosecutrix “R” and they had also ousted daughter-in-law “K” from their house. As per the defence taken by the petitioner, there was some dispute about the property and about the relation with another daughter-in-law “K” against whom a divorce petition was filed by the real son of the prosecutrix “R” and they had also ousted daughter-in-law “K” from their house. So being an elder member of the family, petitioner No.1-Rajkumar Chandrakar had given shelter to his daughter-in-law “K” at his house at Mopka, which was not liked by the prosecutrix and for the same to exert pressure and also to get the property in their names had lodged the FIRs. So from all these attending circumstances together with considerable delay in lodging the FIR, the only inference can be drawn that the FIRs lodged were absurd and inherently improbable, and the matter is squarely covered under the parameters 5 and 7 in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Relevant parameters 5 & 7 read thus:- (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9. In the matter of Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293 , the scope of power under Section 482 of the CrPC has been examined by the Supreme Court and following was observed. The relevant para-22 reads thus : 22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158 wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (SCC pp. 347-49, paras 29-30) “29. 347-49, paras 29-30) “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences, inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10. In the matter of Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of UP and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032, the prosecutrix was having affair with the accused and considering the consensual relationship from 2013 to 2017 and further taking into the consideration that both are educated adults in the backdrop of the case the offence under Section 376 was not made out and the petition under Section 482 of the code was allowed by the Supreme Court. 11. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others v. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 has held that the second FIR, where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR, is not fatal. 11. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others v. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 has held that the second FIR, where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR, is not fatal. Relevant para reads thus:- “16. The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed by this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [ (2001) 6 SCC 181 ]. It was held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 CrPC has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the CrPC. The Court further held that barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India ” 12. Considering the whole background of the case, it is vivid that the allegations made in the FIRs are completely absurd. So, continuance of criminal proceeding appears to be unjust. Because of providing shelter to another daughter-in-law “K” against whom a divorce petition was filed by the real son of the prosecutrix “R” and also because of the property dispute, the elder members of the family (petitioners) were roped in such FIRs. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of criminal proceeding is clearly abuse of process of law. 13. Resultantly, both the petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. FIR No.210/2022 registered on 1.5.2022 at Police Station Seepat for offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC and FIR No.212/2022 registered on 2.5.2022 at Police Station Seepat for offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and all the proceedings emanating from both the FIRs (Sessions Case Nos.155/2022 and 156/2022 pending before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur) are hereby quashed.