MANISH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C482 application is filed by the applicant for quashing the judgment and order dtd. 27/6/2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.477 of 2023, Wadi Vs. Mohini Rana and judgment and order dtd. 1/7/2023, passed in Criminal Revision No.145 of 2023, Manish Solanki Vs. State of Uttarkahand and another both arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.140 of 2022, under Ss. 376 and 504 of IPC registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, Dehradun.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no.3 against the applicant alleging therein that he has committed rape on the false pretext of marriage. On the basis of these allegations investigation was carried out by different Police Officers, who after investigation submitted a final report stating therein that there is no evidence against the applicant. Against the final report a protest petition was filed by respondent no.3 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun took cognizance against the applicant, against which applicant filed a revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun who in turn dismiss the said revision. Hence, the C482 application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the courts below have committed grave irregularity in taking cognizance against the applicant even after filing of a final report by the Investigation Officer. He submits that the present FIR has been lodged by respondent no.3 to extort money from the applicant and to tarnish his image. He also submits that respondent no.3 was employed by the applicant to take care of his minor son. This fact clearly shows that respondent no.3 was aware about the marital status of the applicant. He further submits that final report was filed by the Investigating Agency after taking statements of various other staff members of the applicant who testified that respondent no.3 was fully aware of the marital status of the applicant. He also submits that the FIR was lodged after 7 years of the alleged incident with in itself raises doubt over the prosecution story. He submits that even after her own marriage respondent no.3 used to visit the applicant along with her husband which she would have not done if the applicant have had ravaged her.