Raj Singh @ Krishan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 345 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (Crl.) No.277 of 2021

Raj Singh @ Krishan Singh                                 ....... Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                        .......Respondents
Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rohit Dhyani, Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. Rohit Dhyani, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

                               Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

             The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the

impugned FIR No.331 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020, under Sections 376

and 506 IPC, lodged by respondent no.3 at P.S. Nanakmatta, District-

Udham Singh Nagar and a mandamus commanding / directing the

respondents not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the

impugned FIR.

2.           Facts

necessary for disposal of this petition, briefly

stated, are as hereunder:-

According to the FIR, the informant, who is respondent

no.3 herein is married, having two children and was staying happily

with her husband. On 06.03.2017 when the informant was all alone in

her house at 10:00 p.m. late evening, the petitioner entered the house

and raped her and also threatened her to life, in case, she reveals it to

anyone. The informant revealed it to her husband when he returned,

but the husband of informant expelled her from his house. The

informant went to her father's house, but they also did not allow her

to stay with them. The informant started staying in a rented

accommodation. There again under the pretext of marriage the

petitioner established physical relations with her. When the informant

objected to it, the petitioner threatened to make her intimate video

and photographs viral.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

there is no medical examination report of the informant; the FIR has

been lodged after three years of the incident; the petitioner is a minor;

his age is 17 years only. It is also argued that the parties have entered

into a compromise. When the Court questioned, as to how an FIR of

such a nature can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that the informant has herself given

an affidavit that under some wrong impression she lodged the report.

Reference has been made to annexure-4 to the petition, which is, in

fact, leveled as a compromise, signed by both the informant and the

petitioner.

4. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The FIR is categorical. It levels allegation of rape against the

petitioner. The first incidence allegedly occurred on 06.03.2017 and

according to the FIR, on 01.12.2020 also the petitioner established

physical relations with the informant. The FIR, discloses commission

of offences. What is the reliability and credibility of the material,

these are the subject which falls for consideration of the Investigating

Officer.

5. If petitioner is a child, what would be the procedure it

also falls for consideration of the Investigating Officer. Whether in

the instant case, the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of Children) Act, 2015 shall be applicable? This Court cannot make

any observation at this stage. As stated, it is also subject to scrutiny

during investigation.

6. Strangely enough along with the instant petition, a

compromise has been filed signed by the petitioner and the informant.

Who approached the informant and why she was approached. Even

this Court is informed that today the informant is before the Court.

Who has called her and why has she been called. Is she been

pressurized by the petitioner to file compromise? This Court also

does not want to record any finding on this aspect. Whether the FIR is

false or correct or has been wrongly lodged by the informant, it is for

the Investigating Officer to look into those aspects and if the FIR is

false definitely the Investigating Officer will also consider to proceed

against the person who lodged the false FIR. According to FIR, it is a

case of rape, not once but repeatedly.

7. Having considered the all aspects of this matter, this

Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference,

therefore, the petition is dismissed accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 15.02.2021

BS/SS