Naveen Singh vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 1375 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 205/2022

Naveen Singh S/o Sh. Ramesh Singh, Aged About 36 Years, (Presently Posted With Indian Army At Jammu And Kashmir), R/ o Village Pali , Distt. Mahendragarh, Haryana.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Victim D/o Virendra Singh, Village Khudana, Bagad, Dist.

Jhunjhunu, Second Address- Dept. Of Panchayati Raj Govt. Secretariate Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh Tripathi, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment / Order

28/01/2022

By way of this miscellaneous petition, petitioner has made

challenge to the FIR No.221/2021 registered at Police Station

Kotgate, District Bikaner offence under Section 376 of the IPC and

Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (amended 2015).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

FIR came to be lodged on 18.08.2021, prior to it, another FIR

No.34/2020 was lodged at women police station, Narnaul, District

Mahendragarh, Haryana by the same complainant/prosecutrix

alleging identical allegations of seducing her on the pretext of

promise to marry.

                                           (2 of 3)                       [CRLMP-205/2022]



       Learned   counsel       for     the     petitioner          submits     that    the

allegations levelled in the FIRs are not only absurd but highly in

probable also. The prosecutrix is grown up lady who was in

relationship with the petitioner since the year, 2016 at her own

free will and violation but now owing to some discord a false

report of rape has been lodged.

He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court passed in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of

Maharashtra 2019 (9) SCC 608 and submits that in view of the

judgment referred supra, if, the allegations leveled in the FIR are

taken in its entirety, no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made

out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the

impugned FIR is a second FIR lodged at the instance of the

complainant. The truth, substance and nature of allegations in

both the FIRs are same,.therefore, in view of the judgment passed

in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 181 as

well as another Supreme Court Judgment Amitbahi Anil Chandra

Shah vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2013 (6)

SCC, the entire proceedings of the impugned FIRs are liable to be

quashed and set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the parties; apparently both the

FIR has been lodged by the same complainant levelling identical

nature of allegation, therefore, in view of the judgement referred

supra. This Court do inclined interfere in the course of

investigation.

Admit.

Issue notice.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-205/2022]

Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of

respondent No.1- State.

Let notice be issued to the respondent No.2 only, returnable

within a period of six weeks.

In the meanwhile and until further orders, further

proceedings in the FIR No.221/2021 registered at police station

Kotgate, District Bikaner shall remain stayed.

The petitioner shall join the investigation and provide the

documents to the Investigating Officer to enable him to reach on a

legitimate conclusion.

List the matter after six weeks.

(FARJAND ALI),J 10-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)