Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20452 of 2011 ====================================================== Uday Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party -2 : Mr. S.Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. A.K.Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 28th October 2009 passed in Com. Case No. 34 of 2007, [STATUTE] Devi filed a written application before the Officer In-charge, Jehanabad Police Station stating therein that she being a Harijan poor lady had taken Rs.1,000/- from the petitioner by pledging ear-ring and whenever she had gone for return of the same, was informed, petitioner was at Ranchi and seldom used to come to Jehanabad. On 27th August 2004 at 800 hrs, in the morning, when by chance she met the petitioner at court premises, on her demand of jewelry, petitioner brought her to his house where she was asked to stay, after some time, petitioner returned and committed rape forcibly on the prosecutrix. She has stated that she narrated her story to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20452 of 2011 (4) dt.25-09-2012 2 / 4 2 sons of petitioner, namely, Vikas Verma and Ashwini Verma and by that time her husband came whereupon Yugeshwar Prasad, father had used abusive language against the prosecutrix and assaulted her husband. His grand son caught her hair and pushed her down to the earth had also spit at her mouth and also threatened with dire consequences. An FIR vide Jehanabad P.S.Case No. 325 of 2004 was instituted for offences [STATUTE] (x) (xii) of SC/ST Act. Police investigated the matter and submitted final form and on protest petition, after enquiry, the court took cognizance under the aforesaid Sections, as mentioned above. Counsel for the petitioner submits that present case is completely a malicious prosecution and far from the truth. This prosecutrix has been set up by one Arun Prasad who happens to be his uncle. As he is doing his business at Ranchi, he has greedy eye over his property at Jehanabad. He has filed several civil and criminal cases and this is one of those cases filed by the prosecutrix. He has further submitted that the present case gives inference of maliciousness of his uncle who is bent upon to create such a situation so that petitioner may leave Jehanabad by selling his property to him in throw-away price. He further submitted that when the prosecutrix realized her guilt, filed an affidavit before Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20452 of 2011 (4) dt.25-09-2012 3 / 4 3 the court below through another Advocate stating that she had filed the present case at the instanced of Arun Prasad and the story mentioned therein was fabricated and far from truth. When the uncle of the petitioner came to know about filing of the affidavit by the prosecutrix, he managed to get another affidavit filed to the effect that by applying criminal force, petitioner got the earlier affidavit filed by the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the parties cannot be allowed to use the court as a tools for accomplishment of nefarious design and if the court feels that it is completely a malicious prosecution, in that case, this Court should quash the proceeding. Counsel for the O.P. objected the argument and submitted that after receipt of perpetration from the petitioner, O.P.No.2 filed a Police case knowing full well that she would be asked to go for medical examination where the truth would be revealed. This action of O.P.No.2 shows bona fide allegation against the petitioner and the report of the doctor does not rule out the commission of rape on her. He has further submitted that actually the petitioner had obtained affidavit by using criminal force and later on she filed another affidavit explaining the reasons for earlier affidavit. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20452 of 2011 (4) dt.25-09-2012 4 / 4 4 this Court at this stage is not testing the veracity of the statement of prosecution as the court below has taken cognizance on the basis of materials that has come in the complaint petition as well as in the enquiry. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned. This petition is accordingly rejected. However, if the court below comes to a conclusion that the case has been filed by the prosecutrix maliciously, set up by Arun Prasad, uncle of the petitioner, in that circumstance, if so likes, will be at liberty to take stern action against the prosecutrix as also against the person involved in the setting up this lady even award cost. This Court is not inclined to give any opinion on the merits of the case. The above observation should not be treated as direction of this Court. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 325

Statute Text:
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.