SHAKUNTLA SONI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 91 of 2014 dated 15.4.2014, registered at PS Nurpur, District Kangra, HP, under Sections 376-D and 109 of IPC, order dated 12.11.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra, at Dharamshala, whereby he proceeded to frame charges under Section 376-D of IPC against petitioners No.1 and 3 namely Suresh Chand Kapila and Sumesh Kapila and under Section 109 IPC against petitioner No.2 namely Smt. Sudershana Devi and consequent criminal proceedings i.e. pending before the court below.

(2.) Precisely, facts of the case, which led to lodging of FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, are that on 15.4.2014, respondent No.2 Kuldeep Chand (herein after referred to as "the complainant"), who is brother of petitioner No.1, brother in law of petitioner No.2 and uncle (Chachu) of petitioner No.3, got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, stating therein that in the intervening night of 13/14.4.2014, while he was sleeping in his house along with his family members and had put lock on the door, his daughter-respondent No.2 (herein after referred to as the victim-prosecutrix), came and asked for key of the door so that she could shoo away the dogs barking outside. The complainant alleged that since he is a heart patient and had taken medicine, he gave her the keys, but after five minutes, he found that victim-prosecutrix was not on her bed. He stated that when victim-prosecutrix did not answer his calls, he woke up his son. He alleged that at 3:00 AM, in the night, his son Shivam went towards Bazaar to find her, but he came back without knowing her whereabouts. He stated that again, on the next day, at 6:00 AM, he sent his son towards the Khud to ascertain the whereabouts of his daughter (victim-prosecutrix), but she was not found. At 8/9:00 AM, he disclosed the entire incident to Baldev Singh Sandhu and at 6:40 PM, registered the missing report of victim-prosecutrix at the Police Station and told to the police that he has suspicision that his younger brother namely Suresh Chand, his wife Sudershana Devi and son Sumesh i.e. petitioners herein, may have made his daughter run away. On inquiry, allegedly petitioner No.1 though initially refused to identify his niece (victim-prosecutrix) when he was shown photographs by the police, but after 5-7 minutes disclosed to the police that victim-prosecutrix is sleeping on the first floor of his house. Police in the presence of respectable members of the society found the victimprosecutrix in the first floor of the house of the petitioners in drowsy condition. After having seen victim-prosecutrix, complainant alleged that petitioner No.3 Sumesh Kumar, has committed rape on his daughter after administering her drugs. Police after having recorded the statement of respondent No.2-victim-prosecutrix and her brother under Section 161 Cr.PC also got the statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC before JMIC and thereafter FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioners under Sections 376 and 120 B of IPC.

(3.) After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, perusal whereof reveals that during investigation, no case was found to have been committed by the petitioners under Sections 376 and 120-B of the IPC and as such, those were deleted, however, in challan prepared on the basis of investigation, police alleged that the accused have committed offence punishable under Sections 376-D and 109 of IPC.