Crl. Misc. No. M-11821 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11821 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.5.2009 Shyam Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of FIR dated 24.6.2008 that has been registered for the offences under Sections 376, 420 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). Besides, Sections 3, 6 and 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act” – for short). In the FIR that has been registered on the statement of the complainant (prosecutrix), it has been alleged by the complainant that she and her husband Shyam Lal used to do labour work to meet their expenses. In the Police Station City Bahadurgarh Shyam Singh (petitioner) was working as a Constable. The husband of the complainant and the petitioner got to know each other as the husband of the petitioner used to do labour work at the Police Station and they became friendly with each other. One day the petitioner sent the husband of the complainant to Sector -6, Bahadurgarh for labour job and he (petitioner) came to the house of the complainant and raped her against her wishes. When the complainant stated to the petitioner that Crl. Misc. No. M-11821 of 2009 -2- she would complain then the petitioner told her that he would get a plot measuring 100 square yards at Bahadurgarh which belongs to his relative transferred in favour of the complainant. When the complainant told her husband about the incident, he too said that they must take the plot. They (complainant and her husband) had about Rs.70,000/- with them which they gave to the petitioner Shyam Singh to purchase the plot for them. Later on, Shyam Singh (petitioner) refused to give the plot and got its registry done in the name of his wife Darshana. He also refused to return the amount of Rs.70,000/- which was given by the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner Shyam Singh raped the complainant for about three years against her wishes at her rented house and maintained sexual relations with her on the pretext of selling the plot. The complainant and her husband tried to strike a compromise but the compromise could not be effected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has refused to get her medical examination conducted. Besides, the allegations of rape have been made in view of the dispute relating to Rs.70,000/-. As such, the FIR in the case is liable to be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P5) has considered the charge report (Challan) filed by the prosecution. It was found that no prima facie case for the offences under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 3, 6 and 12 of the Act were made out against the accused (petitioner). Therefore, he was discharged for the said offences under the aforesaid Sections in the case. However, it was found from a perusal of the police report and other material that a prima facie case for the offence under Section 376 IPC only was made out against the accused, so he was charged accordingly. There is no challenge to the order dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P5). Besides, the learned Sessions Judge having found a prima facie case to be made out for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC which is not assailed, there is no ground made out for this Court to interfere and quash the Crl. Misc. No. M-11821 of 2009 -3- impugned FIR. The petitioner may raise his contentions as raised herein at the appropriate stage before the learned trial Court itself. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry so as to ascertain whether the allegations as made in the FIR would be established or not. For that is the domain of the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 1, 2009 amit