Crl.R.No.2754 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2754 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 22, 2010 Kashmir Singh .....Petitioner v. Jasbir Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.L.Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent no.1. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.3.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in revision petition filed against the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, dated 13.9.2003, summoning the petitioner to face trial for offences under Sections 342/354 IPC, vide which the revision petition was partly accepted and it was observed that offences under Sections 323, 376 read with Section 511 IPC are also made out against the present revision petitioner-Kashmir Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that respondent-complainant Jasbir Kaur is in the habit of filing of this type of false complaints against innocent persons and that earlier as well she had lodged an FIR No.11, dated 4.4.2004 for offences under Sections 376, 506 IPC against one Gurinderjit Singh and however, later on Crl.R.No.2754 of 2009 (O&M) -2- she did not support the prosecution version and accused was acquitted. It is further contended that on the evidence adduced before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, by the complainant, prima facie, case for offences punishable under Sections 342, 354 IPC was found and hence, petitioner was summoned to face trial under the said offences and however, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that prima facie case for offences under sections 323, 376 read with Section 511 IPC is also made out on the same evidence. It has been contended that no medical evidence has been placed on record by the complainant and hence it is contended that the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The present revision petition has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant on the plea that petitioner is having no right to pursue this revision petition before this Court as he was summoned by learned trial Court vide order dated 13.9.2003 and that he has been absconding for the last about seven years. It is further contended that in the complaint as well as in the statement given by the respondent- complainant- Jasbir Kaur, before learned trial Court she has specifically deposed that she was called by Sunita on the occasion of birthday of her son on 3.2.2003 and that at about 4.00 p.m., she reached her house and found that there was no programme of celebration of the birthday and she told her that the function was delayed on account of some urgent work of accused Kashmir Singh. She further deposed that in the meanwhile accused Kashmir Singh reached there and he accompanied him to market for making some purchases and when they returned, there was no one present in the house of accused-Sunita. It is further deposed that accused Kashmir Singh pushed her inside the room and bolted the room from inside against her wishes and put off all her clothes and also put off all his clothes and started making excesses towards her and on her raising alarm Sartaj Singh and Kuldeep Singh were attracted and hence she was saved. Hence, it is contended that in view of the allegations prima facie case for offences under Sections 376/511 IPC is made out and hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Kapurthala, in passing the impugned order. Crl.R.No.2754 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Law is well settled that at the stage of summoning of accused learned Magistrate is to see only prima facie case. From the deposition of complainant-Jasbir Kaur, as narrated above by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, she has specifically deposed that accused had pushed her inside a room of the house of the Sunita and bolted the room from inside against her wishes. He forcibly undressed the complainant and also undressed himself and started making excess towards her. Hence, on these facts, it cannot be said that it is a case of making preparation for committing rape only, rather, petitioner has travelled beyond that stage and hence, prima facie, case for attempt to commit rape punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC is made out against him. For this view reliance has also been placed upon Yash Pal v. State of Haryana 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 411, wherein accused called the prosecutrix in his house on the pretext that his Bhabhi was wanting to meet the prosecutrix and when the prosecutrix went inside the house, he bolted the door and besides undressed himself, undressed her and when prosecutrix shouted, one Krishan Lal had come there and on these facts, it was held that the same amounts to attempt to commit rape. Relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:- “20. In the present case, as referred to above already, it has been established in the evidence of the prosecutrix that the appellant called the prosecutrix in his house on the pretext that his Bhabi was wanting to meet the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix went inside the house, he bolted the door, threatened her and besides undressing himself, undressed her. He tried to commit rape but when the prosecutrix shouted, one Krishan Lal had come. The sequence of events clearly shows that it was an attempt to commit the rape. It was an act done with an intention to commit rape and but for the intervening he had been successful in committing rape. It also shows that it was done without her consent.” Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in passing the impugned order, warranting Crl.R.No.2754 of 2009 (O&M) -4- interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 22.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.