Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 542 (RAJ)

Nanu Ram @ Sohan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-03

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the present criminal misc petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and C.R. Case (First Information Report) No.152/2021, pending Investigation at Police Station Gachchhipura (Nagaur) for offence under section 363 I.P.C. and section 11/12 POCSO Act may kindly be quashed and set-aside." 2. As per the prosecution, the respondent No.2 Dhula Ram submitted a written report to the SHO PS, Gachchhipura alleging inter alia that his daughter Mst. 'S' was taken away by the petitioner in a car on 12.10.2021 between 10:15-10:30 P.M. The said car was seen to be conducting a recce' near the house of the complainant for the past 5-7 days. On the basis of the allegations levelled by the complainant in the written complaint, an FIR against the present petitioner and the co-accused persons namely Hupa Ram and Madhu Ram was lodged at Police Station Gachchhipura, District Nagaur for the offences under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act. 3. This Court vide order dated 27.01.2022 and order dated 21.10.2022 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to keep the investigating officer present before this Court along with the case diary of the impugned FIR No.152/2021 and the case diary of FIR No.30/2020 lodged at Police Station Gachchhipura, District Nagaur against the present petitioner. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, the case diary of the impugned FIR and the FIR No.30/2020 was produced before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. On perusal of the case diaries, this Court finds that in the FIR No.30/2020 lodged by the complainant against the present petitioner, identical allegations have been levelled. The victim, Mst. 'S', during the course of investigation in connection with the FIR No.30/2020, categorically stated that she went away from her father's house on her own free will and volition. The victim Mst. 'S' during her statements recorded under various sections of the Cr.P.C., categorically denied the allegation of she being kidnapped by the present petitioner. 6. In the present FIR, when the investigation was carried out by the Police, the victim Mst. 'S' in her statements categorically stated that her parents took money and married her off to one Munna Ram of Sujangarh. 6. In the present FIR, when the investigation was carried out by the Police, the victim Mst. 'S' in her statements categorically stated that her parents took money and married her off to one Munna Ram of Sujangarh. Her husband used to beat her after consuming liquor. In these circumstances, she came back to her parental house. However, she was not welcomed by her paternal relatives and she was beaten by them. 7. The victim Mst 'S', during the course of investigation in connection with the impugned FIR, further stated that in the year 2020, during the proceedings of the previous FIR No.30/2020, she was presented before the CWC, where she was assured by her parents that she would be sent with Nanu Ram, on which she went back to her father's house. However, her parents were intending to sell her off and therefore, she voluntarily went to Bhopal and contacted Nanu Ram. 8. Having carefully perused both the FIRs, statements of the victim - Mst. 'S' recorded under various sections of the Cr.P.C. and the investigation made so far by the investigating agency, this Court prima facie finds that even if the allegations set out in the FIR are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the alleged offences are not sufficiently made out against the present petitioner. 9. 'S' recorded under various sections of the Cr.P.C. and the investigation made so far by the investigating agency, this Court prima facie finds that even if the allegations set out in the FIR are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the alleged offences are not sufficiently made out against the present petitioner. 9. The relevant portion of the Factual Report dated 23.09.2023 produced before this Court by the investigating agency is reproduced below for ready reference: ^^rFkkdfFkr vkjksih ek/kksjke ,oa :ikjke tkV fuoklh ';keiqjk ds fo:) vijk/k uk lkfcr gSA bu nksukss dh oDr ?kVuk yksds'ku cSxyksj es gSA vkjksih ukuwjke iwoZ es cSxykSj es xzsukbZV QSDVªh es lkFk es etnwjh djrs FksA tgka ls ukuwjke dks djhc 7&8 eghus igys gh fudky fn;k FkkA rFkk ckfydk Lo;a vius ?kj Hkksiky ls ukuwjke ds ikl tkuk vius dFkuksa es crk jgh gSA rFkk vkjksih ukuwjke dk Hkh rFkk dfFkr vkjksih ek/kksjke ,oa :ikjke ls dksbZ lEidZ ugh gSA ek= ijs'kku djus ds vk'k; ls ifjoknh us tkucw>dj buds uke izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ es fy[kok;s gSA ;g gS fd izdj.k es nkSjkus vuqla/kku ckfydk lqJh ljhrk us /kkjk 161 tkŒQksŒ ,oa /kkjk 164 tkŒQksŒ ds rgr fd;s dFkuksa es crk;k gS fd ckfydk ds ekrk firk us :i;s ysdj ckfydk lqJh ljhrk dk fookg 2017 es equkjke fuoklh lqtuxढ ds lkFk es dj fn;k FkkA rFkk lkVs es esjs HkkbZ dk fookg fd;k FkkA ckfydk dk ifr 'kjkc ihdj ekjihV djrk FkkA ogk ugh xbZ rks ?kj okyks us ekjihV dh rks ijs'kku gksdj 2020 es ukuwjke mQZ lksgujke yqgkj fuoklh eukuh ds lkFk pyh xbZA iqfyl us cky dY;k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k fd;kA tgka ij esfMdy cksMZ }kjk ckfyd ?kksf"kr Lora= dj fn;k FkkA mlds ckn es okil cky dY;k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k djus ij ukjh fudsru fHktok fn;k FkkA tgka ls ekrk firk }kjk ukuwjke ds lkFk es fHktokus dk vk'oklu nsus ij ekrk firk ds lkFk xbZA exj esjs ?kj okys ekjihV dj cspuk pkgrs FksA blfy, eS Hkksiky es ukuwjke ds ikl pyh xbZ FkhA esjs ?kj okyks us Ldwy es esjh NksVh mez fy[kk dj >qBs eqdnes ntZ djok dj ijs'kku djrs gSA eS ckfyd gwWA esjs firk th cspuk pkgrs gSA^^ 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, looking into the holistic events in its entirety, considering that the victim - Mst. In view of the aforesaid discussion, looking into the holistic events in its entirety, considering that the victim - Mst. 'S' in her statements has not only categorically denied the allegations of she being kidnapped by the present petitioner but has also stated that she had left her father's house on her own free will and volition. This Court is of the firm opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the present petitioner will be a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. 11. Hence, the impugned FIR No.152/2021 registered at Police Station Gachchhipura, District Nagaur for the offences under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act and all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner. 12. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.