JIAUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the F.I.R. being No. 163/2004 dated 08.12.2004 under Sections 420/ 342/293/376 I.P.C., registered as G.R. Case No. 774/2004 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kandi.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that the petitioner's father O.P. No. 3 at his old age has developed on illicit relationship with O.P. No. 2 who has been divorced by her husband, for over last two years and has promised to marry her by giving all his movable and immovable properties. As the said illegal act of O.P. No. 3 has been damaging the prestige of the petitioner's family they protested against it. At the instance of O.P. No. 3, O.P. No. 4-mother of O.P. No. 2, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr, P.C. in the Court of learned, S.D.J.M., Kandi in 2002 alleging that the petitioners kidnapped O.P. No. 2 on 12.02.2002 which was not entertained. The said O.P. No. 3 lodged another complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. through O.P. No. 2 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kandi on 08.12.2004 alleging that the petitioners committed rape upon her two years ago on and from 11.02.2002 to 24.02.2002. The above complaint is absolutely baseless, false and not worthy of belief. In the case filed by O.P. No. 4 against the petitioners on 27.02.2004 under Sections 147/447/427/506/323 I.P.C., where the date of incident has been shown as 14.02.2002, there is no whisper of the allegation of rape.

(3.) Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that on the facts aforesaid, the F.I.R. being No. 163/2004 dated 08.12.2004 alleging an incident of rape of about two years back does not prima facie stand, and as such the same deserves to be quashed. Mr. Pinaki Kumar Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, on referring a decision in M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004 SCC (Cr.) 118 submitted that mere delay is no ground for discarding the F.I.R nor is it any ground for quashing an F.I.R. particularly when a clear case of cognizable offence has been made out, and so the petitioner's prayer for quashing the F.I.R. should be rejected in limine.