PRADEEP KUMAR ARYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 49/2018 registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for committing offence punishable under Ss. 376, 376-F, 377, 313, 114, 506-B, 323 and 34 of I.P.C. and subsequent final report and proceeding in Sessions Trial No. 101/2019 pending before Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (C.G.).

(2.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioner No. 1 is working as Police Inspector in Police Department and complainant/respondent No. 3 is also working as Sub-Inspector in Police Department. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 were appointed as Sub-Inspector on 14/9/2011 (Annexure P/2) in Police Department. The performance of petitioner No. 1 was excellent, as such, he was given out of turn promotion and promoted as Town Inspector on 30/12/2016 (Annexure P/3). He has also received many appreciation letters from the department. Complainant/ respondent No. 3 who was also appointed as Sub-Inspector in the department, lodged a report on 7/9/2018 against the petitioner No. 1 alleging that on 15/2/2012 at about 9-10 a.m., petitioner No. 1 came and forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. She became pregnant and it was further alleged that with the help of petitioner No. 1, abortion was also done. Petitioner No. 1 had relationship with many girls. The petitioner No. 1 has committed sexual intercourse with respondent No. 3 in presence of petitioner No. 2, as such, petitioner No. 2 has also been arrayed as accused in the case and FIR has been registered against them for committing offence punishable under Ss. 376, 376-F, 377, 313, 114, 506-B, 323 and 34 of I.P.C.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that an agreement (Annexure P/7) has been executed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 on 28/2/2015, wherein it is mentioned that Flat No. 302 situated at Second Floor of Vishwanath Apartment was purchased with the investment of equal share of amount towards purchase of the flat and with consent of both the parties, the name of petitioner No. 1 has been recorded in the records. He would further submit that the present FIR registered on pretext of marriage, petitioner No. 1 committed sexual intercourse with respondent No. 3, has no force and is false and fabricated one. Even from the bare perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners. He would further submit that petitioner No. 1 is two-three years younger than the complainant as petitioner No. 1 is at present aged about 38 years and respondent No. 3 is aged about 40 years. The respondent No. 3 being very clever and smart having knowledge of legal proceedings, has filed false and fabricated FIR just to spoil service career of the petitioners. It has been further contended that serious allegations against the petitioners have been levelled, which is nothing but involving an innocent in a serious crime, which he had not committed.