RAMESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the FIR and the investigation made against him.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that report has been lodged against him by the Doctor on 10-5-2003, typed copy of which has been filed. The said report is pertinent and quoted herein below :-- In Para 10 of the petition, it is submitted that during investigation the investigating officer recorded the statements of the complainant Dr. Anupabhama Dixit, her husband Anurag Dixit, S. Salim Ahmed, Constable Purushottam Lal Sahu. In Para 12, petitioner alleged that the FIR lodged by the complainant is illegal, untrustworthy, false and baseless because the statements of independent witnesses have not been recorded by the police and due to the contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the Town Inspector of the Police Station Moudhapara. As such it is submitted that the FIR is illegal, false and baseless. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked that when a lady makes a report or complaint to the police and thereon the police recorded the statements of the complainant, her husband and one another witness, how can it be termed as illegal. Learned Counsel submits that the complainant, other independent witnesses arc yet to be examined, as such the FIR is illegal, baseless and untrustworthy. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to say anything in support of the allegations of untrustworthy, baseless and falsity. On being asked as to who were the independent witnesses, Counsel for the applicant is unable to give the names of those persons.

(3.) THE petitioner in Para 13 submitted that the complainant in her report has simply stated that the accused insulted her modesty, passed blue comments upon her and it is very strange that a reputed person would make a cheaper act. It is further submitted that with respect to treating and causing insult to the modesty of the complainant and passing blue comments on her, the investigating agency has not recorded statements of any independent witnesses who arc living and residing nearby the place of incident. Petitioner further submits that the Investigating Agency has failed to collect the documentary or oral evidence against the petitioner. Another ground which has been urged in the petition under Section 482, Cr.PC is that a police control room should be provided at all district and State Headquarters where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room and it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.