RAJOO RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No.431/2001 is directed against the Order of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Delhi dated 11/6/2001 framing charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner before me that upon a complaint made by the prosecutrix FIR No.520/1992 Police Station Ambedkar Nagar was registered. Upon completion of the investigation the police filed a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the FIR for reasons that there was no material on record, which could sustain the allegations made in the FIR. While this cancellation report was under consideration by the Court, the prosecutrix filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on more or less the same facts that were alleged in the FIR. The learned Judge exercising his power rejected the police report on the basis of the material available before hir. and came to the conclusion that a charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code could be framed against Rajoo and not Gopal. The learned judge has, it appears, mixed up the police report with the complaint.

(3.) It is interesting to note that the complainant a girl of 13 years of age, she alleges that on 14/9/1992 while she was coming back from the market for going to her home at about 9 O'clock, she went to a nearby lavatory where she was trapped by many boys and one amongst them was Rajoo. He forcefully took her in the lavatory and pointed a knife. thereafter removed her under garments and all others held her legs and arms and Rajoo committed rape on her against her wishes and consent. Thereafter the remaining six also performed the drastic act and then she was taken towards the cremation ground where Seema saw her and enquired from the prosecutrix as to what the matter was. The accused persons immediately filed and the prosecutrix along with Seema went to Seema's house. This is her case in the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The FIR, on the other hand, reads as under: