Crl. Misc. No. M- 23988 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 23988 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 14, 2011 Raghuvansh Mandal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.78, dated 17.10.2010, registered under Section 376 IPC, at Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana. It is averred in the petition that his niece, who had come to stay with him had gone to grocery shop on 15.2.2009 to bring some household articles. She did not return home for some time. Efforts were made to search the girl, but all in vain. The petitioner ultimately lodge a complaint with the police against Moti lal, S/o Sia Ram Yadav for kidnapping and abducting his niece, who was his neighbour and allegedly used to tease the girl to entangle her in his Crl. Misc. No. M- 23988 of 2011 -2- net on the pretext of getting married to her. The petitioner further states that he had prevented Moti Lal many times to desist from his activities. On the basis of this complaint, the girl and Moti Lal were apprehended and the FIR was registered on 19.2.2009 at Police Station Model Town, Distt, Ludhiana (City), under Sections 363/366 IPC. This was against Moti Lal, S/o Sia Ram Yadav. The age of the girl is stated to be 15-1/2 years approximately. It is also disclosed that Moti Lal was an employee of Suraj Madan. On the statement made by the girl, it revealed that Moti Lal and Suraj Madan had abducted and raped the girl. Certain items were also recovered from the room of one farmhouse at Hambara. Medical examination of the girl was also conducted, which confirmed the rape. The offences under Sections 342/376/506 IPC by the police were added against said Moti Lal and Suraj Madan. All accused were remanded to judicial custody. Statement of the girl was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has also been reproduced in the petition. As per the petitioner, despite all this evidence, Suraj Madan was not arrested. Challan in this case was not filed within the stipulated period. This led to Moti Lal also being released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. After one year of the registration of this FIR, an application was filed by Suraj Madan on 29.3.2010 to the Commissioner Police, Ludhiana for re-inquiry or re-investigation of the FIR No.37, Dated 19.2.2009. Suraj Madan averred that he has been falsely implicated in the above noted incident and at the relevant time, he was in his in-laws house at Chandigarh. In this application, certain serious allegations were made against Dalip Crl. Misc. No. M- 23988 of 2011 -3- Bedi, who was Incharge of Police Station, and certain other constables for having robed money, two golden rings and gold chain etc. from him. The inquiry was marked to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. The Inquiry Officer found that no rape was committed by Moti Lal and Suraj Madan and rather, it was the complainant, who had raped his niece for the first time in the year 2007 and again in 2009. A departmental action was also initiated against those, who had demanded money from Suraj Madan. An FIR was, accordingly, recommended to be registered against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any investigation or inquiry, FIR has now been registered against him on 17.10.2010 under Section 376 IPC. One Parmod Kesla is also named as accused in this FIR. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and sent to judicial custody. The petitioner has now been released on a regular bail though prayer for bail was dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Ludhiana. Anita Rani wife of Parmod Kesla has submitted a representation on 20.10.2010, whereupon an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. He had found that earlier FIR, which was registered against Moti Lala and Suraj Madan on the behest of Parmod Kesla has led to present FIR on account of grudge with Suraj Madan. Parmod Kesla has, accordingly, been declared innocent. Anita Rani, thereafter, also filed a representation on 10.11.2010 to the Director General of Police, Punjab. While this representation is pending, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the FIR registered against him. Crl. Misc. No. M- 23988 of 2011 -4- Notice was issued. No reply has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has made submissions in support of quashing of this FIR on the basis of factual background as noticed above. The outcome of the case would mainly depend upon the statement of the girl prosecutrix. If she, supports the allegation of her rape against the petitioner of which he is alleged to have indulged in the year 2007 and 2009, then he has to face the consequences thereof. Prima facie, the petitioner cannot seek his case to be equated with Parmod Kesla as it was the petitioner with whom his niece had stayed. When asked to explain further, it is revealed that the girl has now married Moti Lal. Obviously, the girl would have gone with Moti Lal with her free will. This aspect perhaps was taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer. Be that as it may, in the background of the allegation that is now made, no case for quashing this FIR is made out. The offence of rape, which is a serious offence not only against an individual but against the society at large cannot be taken so lightly as to quash the FIR on the asking of accused person. If the allegations made against the petitioner are correct, then his conduct is such, which is not only condemnable but depraved as well. The petitioner is accused of having committed rape of his own niece. She was staying with him. Instead of being her protector, the petitioner has exploited the young girl and has violated her body. If the petitioner is innocent then he has to vindicate his honour before the Court by earning acquittal. If, on the other hand, he has committed this crime, then he must be properly brought to the justice before court of law. No case for interference in this Crl. Misc. No. M- 23988 of 2011 -5- case is made out. Dismissed. December 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE