PRAMOD AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR registered under Crime No.293/2018 at Police Station Bandri, District Sagar for the offence under Sections 376-D, 506 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 5g/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 27/28.09.2018 at about 12:30 am when the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years 8 months and 5 days, was at her house situated at village Rajwans under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bandri, District Sagar, petitioners have entered into her house and committed forceful intercourse with her and after commission of the act, they have threatened her regarding her life and fled away from the spot. On the next morning, prosecutrix has narrated the incidence to her neighbor Chandabai. Later on, on 01.10.2018 when prosecutrix's father Raju Ahirwar has come then she narrated him the incidence; and thereafter, accompanied with him, she lodged the report at Police Station Bandri on 01.11.2018. On that basis, above mentioned crime has been registered against the appellants.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the FIR is not sustainable in the eye of law on the ground that the same has been lodged with a delay of 1 1/2 months without having any plausible explanation. It is also contended that the petitioner no.1 and mother of the prosecutrix were appeared on 01.11.2018 before the Police Station Bandri; wherein their statements were recorded. The mother of the prosecutrix specifically stated that the prosecutrix had left the house on her own will and not interested to live with her father; hence, the father of the prosecutrix managed to implicate the petitioners in the false case. It is further contended that the continuation of the investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged shall be an abuse of process of law as the prosecutrix was not aware about the FIR lodged against the petitioners and subsequently in her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she has not alleged anything against the petitioners. On the contrary afterward she came to know about the lodging of FIR, she submitted representations to various authorities including Superintendent of Police, Sagar to the effect that she has not lodged any FIR against the petitioners. In Column No.8 of the FIR no plausible explanation has been mentioned for the delay in the FIR. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto.