HARIVALLABH PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Harivallabh Parikh, apprehending the arrest in Cr.R. No. I-110 of 1996 at Chhota Udaipur police station for offences under Secs. 376, 114 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1) (XII) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has approached this Court by way of Special Criminal Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction not to arrest him. The say of the petitioner is that he is a well-known social worker and has rendered services to the tribal people for five decades. It is stated that he established the Anand Niketan Ashram, at Rangpur in Baroda district in the year 1948 and its activities covers 3,296 villages spread in 20,000 kms. having a population of approximately 25 lakhs. The Institution imparts vocational education in several disciplines for the upliftment of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other down-trodden people. The petitioner says that National Citizenship Award was presented to him for his selfless services in the field of social work by spreading the concept and implementing the system of open Courts, co-operatives, adult education and awakening awareness among women. It is further stated that a false case has been concocted against him by his political rivals to settle the score with him. According to the petitioner, the immediate cause of annoyance is that he blessed Shri Ramsing Rathwa, who contested election from Chhota Udaipur Constituency on the Ticket of Congress (Tiwari). This was not liked by Shri Narayanbhai Rathwa, the Sitting Member of the Parliament. The case has been fabricated with the help of Manjuben, a mid-wife in the hospital, who is none else but the wife of Shri Narayanbhai Rathwa. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape on a girl named Geeta, who was a student of the said Ashram. Geeta belongs to Tribal community and as such, in addition to offence under Secs. 376, 114 - I.P.C., the petitioner is also charged for offence under Sec. 3(1)(XII) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989').

(2.) Shri H. D. Kharat, Circle Inspector, Chhota Udaipur has filed an affidavitin- reply and has submitted that the prosecutrix Geetaben was subjected to rape many times by the petitioner, while she was staying in the Ashram managed by the accused-applicant. It is stated that she was undergoing the training of sewing/ tailoring. The allegation of political bias has been denied.

(3.) The prosecutrix-Geetaben has filed two affidavits through her Counsel Shri K. B. Pande. She has disclosed her age as 20 years. A preliminary objection has been raised with respect to the maintainability of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. On the merits of the case, it is submitted that the petitioner is highly influential person and false statement has been recorded by the police in order to create contradictions between the private complaint and the statement recorded by the police. She has stated that a false name of Rameshbhai has been introduced. She never gave the name of either Ramesh or Raimal. She has given details as to how the rape was committed on her and other inmates of the Ashram. Second affidavit has been filed on 11-6-1996. Alongwith the said affidavit, certain papers have been produced to throw light on the criminal conduct of the petitioner during the period 1966 to 1994. The learned A.P.P. has produced the original record. It contains opinion of some police officers time to time about the character of the petitioner.