PRAMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 14.2.2007 passed by Shri Prabhat Trivedi, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 2248 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the Court below has dismissed the complaint petition under Sec. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the perusal of the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant -petitioner on solemn affirmation, it would appear that the ingredients of offence of rape under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code was easily made out and the Court below has committed illegality in dismissing the complaint petition. Learned Counsel has in this regard referred to the averment in the complaint petition that the complainant alleged that she was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse against her wishes on the allurement of being married.

(3.) IT was, however, admitted at the bar that the petitioner had already been married and had one issue from the said marriage even before filing of the complaint petition. Learned Counsel also does not deny the fact that the petitioner was initially working as a domestic help in the house of the Opposite Party No. 2. He further does not deny the fact that the so -called rape continued to be there for a period of two years before the petitioner woke up and came out to file a complaint case. The very fact that the petitioner had suppressed the fact about her being already married with an issue of six years in the complaint petition and that not even a word was said therein about the so - called allurement given by the accused persons for marriage with the Opposite Party No. 2 goes to show that actually the allegation of the nature of rape has been invented subsequently in a malicious manner. Infact, there was nothing on record of complaint case to substantiate the allegations of rape specially when date and period of the alleged occurrence of rape as is said to be some two years back and the medical corroboration of the allegation of rape was also not possible after a gap of such period.