Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh Constable No. 715
2021 Latest Caselaw 4393 MP

                                   1
   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021
                 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)



Indore, Dated 17.08.2021
      Shri Arihant Kumar Nahar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
      Shri     Sameer     Verma,       learned    PL   for   the     non-
applicant/State.

      Shri Dayanath Pandey, learned counsel for the non-
applicant Manoj Singh.

      Submissions       were   made       on     cancellation   of   bail
application in both the cases.

      Case diary of both the cases be sent over through email
for perusal.

      Order shall be passed after duly considering the
submissions in the light of the case diary and other material
which is placed on record, which is quite voluminous.




                                           (SHAILENDRASHUKLA)
                                                JUDGE

Later on:-

      As per the application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.,
the prosecutrix has stated that the non-applicant No.1
(hereinafter called 'Manoj') has breached the conditions of bail
order passed on 29.1.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.50875/2020. The
prosecutrix in her application has narrated the whole incident,
which led to her lodging of report against Manoj.
                                2
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021
              (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)



     Facts

as narrated in the application, concisely speaking, are that the prosecutrix got acquainted with Manoj in 2017 through Facebook. Manoj told her that she looks like his sister- in-law and also told her that he is a married person and has two children. Subsequently he asked her to come down to Mandsaur, where he will celebrate her birthday. At Mandsaur she was given some intoxicating substance in tea and she was asked to stay back. In the night, brother of Manoj tried to molest her. When she complained to Majoj, he sought apology and told her that he is not married and promised to marry her. Thereafter he established physical relations with her, which he continued to do so for three years rendering her pregnant. He also induced abortion to her by administering her some medicines. Prosecutrix finding no progress on marriage front, complained to DIG on 29.5.2020. This resulted in execution of an affidavit by Manoj and again continued to sexually exploit her. Then prosecutrix lodged complaint of harassment against Manoj leading to lodging of FIR under Section 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 354, 342 of IPC in Crime No.69/2020. Subsequently respondent No.1 filed anticipatory bail application. The application was allowed on 29.1.2021, however the conditions contained therein were breached by Manoj and he threatened prosecutrix with life asking her to take back her complaint against him.

Prosecutrix has further stated that in order to avoid lodging of report under Section 376 IPC, a forged document on stamp payer was got executed by Manoj which contained the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

averments of marriage between the two and, therefore, Shyamgarh police station lodged a false report under Section 498-A, 323, 294, 506 IPC, whereas no such report had been lodged by prosecutrix. The aforesaid FIR under Section 498-A IPC does not bear signatures of the prosecutrix. It is because of detailed complaint sent to DIG, that the aforesaid forged FIR had been registered so that Manoj can take defence that both were in fact married with each other, so that the offence of rape may not be levelled against Manoj.

The prosecutrix in her application for cancellation of bail has stated that finding no action being taken on her complaint, she sent a written complaint to Chief Minister, Mahila Aayog, Human Rights Commission and S.P. Ratlam. Further complaint was sent on 6.11.2020. This led to lodging of FIR against Manoj and his brother Neeraj on 7.11.2020. In respect of this FIR, Manoj was granted anticipatory bail. Subsequent to passing of order of anticipatory bail on 29.1.2021, Manoj came to Ratlam four days later and threatened prosecutrix to take the case back. Prosecutrix went to Deendayal Police Station to lodge a report but she was not heard and, therefore, she sent a written complaint on 8.2.2021 by registered post, of which receipts have been filed. Prosecutrix states that Manoj is threatening her through different mobile phone numbers. Thus, Manoj was not only involved in fabricating a false report under Section 498-A IPC but also has been threatening her and Manoj being himself a police employee, is being given due protection and even after registration of FIR against him, for a

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

period of 3 months Manoj has not been arrested. Thus, the action of police has been questionable and, therefore, it has been prayed that the anticipatory bail granted to Manoj be cancelled and he be asked to surrender his passport.

In reply, it has been stated that FIR bearing Crime No.69/2020 under Section 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 354, 342 of IPC has been lodged by the prosecutrix on false grounds, that first complaint which had been filed by the prosecutrix against non applicant on 29.5.2020 was duly inquired into by ASP Garoth, District Mandsaur and the report had been sent to the SP, Mandsaur on 10.7.2020, in which it was found that the prosecutrix had been married twice earlier whereas she had depicted herself to be unmarried woman. It was also found that she had been impersonating herself as a Police Constable and falsely claiming to be employed in police service and that she has blackmailed Manoj extorting Rs.1,54,000/- from him. The report is at Annexure A/1 which is dated 10.7.2020.

It has further been stated that prosecutrix has lodged false report in Shyamgarh police station in Crime No.426/2020. In this case, statements of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded before the JMFC, in which no specific allegations have been levelled against Manoj. The only allegation is that he has not been talking to prosecutrix after his marriage. In the aforesaid, notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. has been served on Manoj and charge-sheet has been filed in which bail has already been granted.

Regarding the case under Section 376 of IPC, an enquiry

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

was again conducted on 06.03.2021 and the report was found to be false by ASP Garoth, Mandsaur. In the aforesaid case, anticipatory bail has been granted to Manoj on 29.01.2021.

In compliance of the conditions mentioned in the bail order dated 29.01.2021 taking advantage of presence of Manoj in the police station, a complaint was filed again by the prosecutrix on 08.02.2021. The applicant had stated that due to Manoj having been granted bail in Crime No.69/2020, prosecutrix had lodged false complaint by making exaggerated statements.

The non-applicant No.1 - Manoj in his reply, has further stated that prosecutrix had withheld her prior marital status and had established physical relations with him and her report has been found to be false by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, anticipatory bail was granted to Manoj on 29.01.2021. The report which has been lodged on 08.02.2021 is also absolutely false. No reason has been assigned for filing the complaint on 08.02.2021 whereas the incident had allegedly occurred on 03.02.2021. The application for cancellation of bail has, thus, been requested to be rejected.

Considered.

In the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by this Court while allowing anticipatory bail application of the applicant Manoj Singh, in respect of Crime No.69/2020, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant had been noted that the report pertaining to rape has been lodged 3 years after the alleged incident. It was also brought to the knowledge of the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

Court that an enquriy had been conducted in the matter in which close relatives of the prosecutrix had stated that prosecutrix had earlier been married twice prior to marriage with the applicant and this fact of earlier marriages was withheld by the prosecutrix who had proclaimed herself to be unmarried woman. ASP Garoth, in his enquiry report has stated that the prosecutrix had earlier blackmailed her former spouses. Regarding another FIR under Section 498A of IPC, this Court had observed that the prosecutrix has levelled allegations of harassment to her by Manoj after solemnizing of the marriage.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix, during course of submissions has vehemently stressed that the report under Section 498A of IPC was fabricated report and the prosecutrix had not lodged any such report. It is argued that the aforesaid FIR has been shown to have been lodged on the basis of Dehatinalishi, however no Dehatinalishi has been filed which would have exposed Manoj because her signatures are not there in any such Dehatinalishi.

The aforesaid submission has been vehemently denied on behalf of Manoj. Learned counsel Shri Dayanath Pandey, appearing on behalf of Manoj has drawn Court's attention to the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before JMFC in respect of her complaint under Section 498-A of IPC. The prosecutrix has signed the aforesaid document in which she has specifically stated that she had got married to Manoj in Ratlam Court, but thereafter Manoj was avoiding her and then

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

prosecutrix complaint to S.P. and DIG by way of written application then Manoj got married to her. Even after this Manoj continued to avoid her and due to such harassment prosecutrix had consumed petrol near S.P. Office.

These statements have been recorded on 14.9.2020 and FIR is numbered as 426/2020. The period of incident has been shown to be from 27.6.2020 to 9.9.2020.

Thus, the submissions of the prosecutrix that she had not lodged any report under Section 498-A of IPC appears to be incorrect because she had recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C in respect of the same FIR.

Regarding her complaint of rape against Manoj which is registered as crime No.69/2020, it has been found that the date of incident has been shown to be 1.1.2018 and allegations were that Manjoj had promised to marry her and had established physical relations with her which he continued to do so for 3 years. As already stated this Court had granted bail to Manoj considering the submissions that report has been lodged 3 years after the incident and in the enquiry conducted by ASP, it was found that prosecutrix was already married twice whereas, she in her written complaint had shown herself to be a single unmarried woman.

Annexure A/1 is the enquiry report which has been submitted after recording the statements of Dharmendra, the cousin of prosecutrix, Ravi Pawar, the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, Deepak, the elder bother of the prosecutrix, Dinesh, the earlier husband of the prosecutrix, Ratanlal, father

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

of Dinesh, Chandabai, mother of Dinesh. All of them have stated that prosecutrix was first married at Rajgarh then her Natra was performed at Gautampura and third marriage was solemnized in Ratlam. The two persons with whom prosecutrix had got married are namely Deepak and Dinesh. In the enquiry report it has also been found that the prosecutrix was impersonating herself as police constable by dressing herself in police uniform.

All these facts were taken into account while granting anticipatory bail to Manoj. Thus, there appears to be no impropriety contained therein.

The prosecutrix has stated that after grant of anticipatory bail to Manoj and Manoj had threatened her on 03.02.2021 report pertaining to which was not lodged by police and therefore a written complaint was sent on 08.02.2021 which has been received by the police. The written complaint Ex.P/8 has been addressed to SHO Ratlam in which it has been stated that while the prosecutrix was teaching kids on her house. Manoj came on the motor bike and barged inside her house and started abusing her and told her to withdraw the complaint or else he would kill her.

Regarding the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this written complaint dated 08.02.2021 was also inquired into. The Inquiry Officer who is an Inspector has stated that due to the fact that Manoj was granted anticipatory bail and was not sent to jail, hence this written complaint has been filed by the prosecutrix in which

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

exaggerated statements have been made against Manoj and the enquiry however remains pending. It further appears that after the written complaint dated 08.02.2021, the prosecutrix had again lodged an FIR against Manoj on 27.03.2021 under Sections 376, 506 and 323 of IPC which is registered as an FIR No.183/2021. In the aforesaid FIR, copy of which has been filed by the prosecutrix and allegations had been levelled by her that on 24.03.2021 when prosecutrix had come to Mandsaur for recording her statements, Manoj came with his friends and assaulted her and took out his pen and pierced her private part with the cap of pen and abusing her at the same time for lodging the FIR against him. The prosecutrix has stated that she started bleeding from her private parts due to injuries to her. Manoj thereafter filed the anticipatory bail application which was again allowed by this Court on 05.05.2021 considering the fact that although the outer dress of the prosecutrix contained blood stains, however the origin of blood did not appear from any part of the body of prosecutrix as there were no signs of injuries found on her person.

Thus, it appears that on both occasions, the non- applicant No.1 Manoj has been granted anticipatory bail on proper and valid grounds and there are many infirmities in the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against Manoj.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has drawn Court's attention to the Supreme Court Judgment of Sudha Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2001 4 SCC 781 in which it has been held that it is important for Courts to

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

recognize the potential threat on life and liberty of victims / witnesses, if such accused is released on bail. A perusal of the aforesaid case shows that bail was granted to an accused who was alleged to be a contract killer and a sharp shooter employed to murder the husband of applicant and the bail had been granted on a very liberal terms such as liberty to be released on personal bond and allowing to furnish the surety in a month after release from jail, his antecedents were ignored and the potential to repeat his acts were also ignored.

It is quite clear that the aforesaid order was passed by the Supreme Court keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecutrix masquerading in police uniform has been shown to have been withheld her earlier marital status. It has not been found that she had obtained divorce from her earlier spouses.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix has not been given an opportunity to appear before Inquiry Officer. However, the prosecutrix could easily file the affidavits of her own kins who would have supported her submissions that she was an unmarried lady and had never got married with Dinesh or Deepak or any other person or persons. This lapse on her part cannot remain unnoticed.

After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for cancellation of bail of non- applicant No.1 Manoj. Accordingly the application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC stands rejected.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)

A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who shall keep a tab on the activities of Manoj and disciplinary proceedings may also be initiated against him if he is found to have breached the service conditions regarding breach of maintaining a good moral character.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE

Arun/-

Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2021.08.23 18:44:30 +05'30'

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10946 OF 2021 (Priti Solanki vs Manoj Singh & Another)