MANISH KUMAR JAYANT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks quashment of FIR no. 47/2005 dated 30.1.2005 of P.S. Pandav Nagar, Delhi registered under Sections 376 of the IPC on the ground that no offence is made out. The petition has been filed by the accused in the complaint. The complainant is arraigned as respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has joined in the prayer for quashing the FIR.

(2.) A statement of the respondent No. 2 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. In this statement the respondent No. 2 denied that there was any rape. Even in the FIR the allegations simply are that physical relations developed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 out of a love affair and that the petitioner who agreed to marry her after her sister was married has failed to keep his promise and so he is guilty of rape. The respondent No. 2 says that she apprehended that the petitioner would not marry her and accordingly she lodged the FIR and that subsequently the petitioner married her removing all doubts about the sincerity of his promise.

(3.) ON behalf of the State objection to quashing of the FIR was made by Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate on the ground that in the FIR an allegation that when the respondent No. 2 found herself pregnant Manish gave her two tablets which caused her abortion. Before the Court respondent No. 2 stated that she herself took the two tablets. Mr. Sunil Sharma points out that the offence of causing miscarriage punishable under Section 312 IPC can be committed by the person who caused abortion including the woman who is pregnant and, therefore, the police can still proceed to investigate into the offence under Section 312. On 5.5.2005 the State was directed to conclude investigation in respect of offence under Section 312. Today the Investigating Officer says that the complainant is not willing to substantiate the allegations of miscarriage. The complainant has not been subjected to any medical examination so far although the FIR was registered on 30.1.2005. There is no medical evidence either of conception or of miscarriage. Nor is the name and description of the tablets taken by respondent No. 2 available with the investigation.