JHAWARILAL @ CHHOTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition is preferred to assail the order dt.18.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Phalodi in criminal revision petition no. 2/2010 affirming the order dt.30.09.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi taking cognisance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 and 342 IPC.

(2.) In brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 submitted a compliant before the competent Court that her husband sh. Tulsidas died about 28 years back and since then she was residing at her maternal house in village - khichan. The present petitioner used to visit the village to sell pickles, thus, was known to her. The petitioner on 08.04.2008 carried her to Jodhpur and stayed there at a hotel. In the hotel room he attempted rape upon her and thereafter he also snatched a sum of Rs.55,000/- from her. On basis of the complaint the matter was remitted to the police station concerned for further investigation as per provisions of Section 153 (3) Cr.P.C. the investigation agency submitted a negative final report but the learned Trial Court after examining the record differed with the conclusion and took cognisance against the petitioner, of the offences punishable under Sec. 376 and 342 IPC

(3.) I have examined the record available. True it is, the respondent no. 2 submitted a complaint making certain allegations against the petitioner. However, immediately thereafter while getting the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that nothing as alleged took place. The respondent no. 2 in quite unambiguous terms stated that she is of the age of 48 years and was residing with her brother from last 28 years. She further stated that no. ill-treatment was made with her by the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that mother of the respondent no. 2, an old lady of 78 years also stated that her daughter made complaint because of extraneous considerations, and therefore, no. action further is required. The brother of the respondent no. 2 also stated the same facts. The respondent no. 2 then submitted an application in writing stating therein that she went with the present petitioner, a widower of 50 years, at her own will and no incident as alleged in complaint took place. It also reveals from the record that the petitioner and respondent no. 2, both quite mature persons, were keeping good relations and because of either some misunderstanding or become of interference of some so called caste vigilant persons the complaint was lodged.