BHANWARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred by appellants aggrieved from order dtd. 8/12/2020 in Sessions Case No. 95/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Jhunjhunu.

(2.) Respondent-complainant No. 2 had filed a type written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu wherein allegations of harassment demand of sexual favours use of abusive language and also deliberately insulting with caste slur and abusing language against complainant, her husband and other family members were made against present appellants. On the basis of aforesaid FIR No. 136/2018 was registered at P.S. Pilani under Ss. 354 and 504 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act, after investigation police had filed final closure report before learned Special Court. Thereafter, a protest petition was preferred by respondent-complainant, learned Trial Court preferred to examine complainant under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses Daya Chand, Nikita Rohilla and Jaypal Singh under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. before passing the impugned order. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court has proceeded to take cognizance against present appellants.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court without considering the conclusion of FR have proceeded to take cognizance on surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that the matter was properly investigated by a senior police officer and it was found that the complainant is in habit of making false allegations against the staff of Navodaya Vidyalaya. He further submitted that at no point of time, appellant No. 2 was assigned job of PTI for girls students and it is not possible that candidature of daughter of respondent No. 2 was rejected at the behest of appellant No. 2. He further submitted that the appellant No. 3 is a Chowkidar and he was unnecessarily been implicated just to settle score with him. He further submitted that husband of complainant is employed as electrician-cum-plumber in Navodaya Vidyalaya and on multiple occasions he remained absent due to one or the other reason, therefore, in such circumstances services from appellant No. 1, a contractor engaged to provide various services including electrician-cum-plumber services so as to run residential Navodaya Vidyalaya in proper manner, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He further referred that the complaint was filed after a considerable delay and reasons of delay were not explained. He further referred the statements of daughter of complainant, principal of school, cook and other witnesses to submit that none of these witnesses have corroborated that complainant or her family members were insulted or abused with casteist slur. He further submitted that on previous occasion a complaint was made by this complainant and same was found to be as false and a copy is already submitted on record. He further referred the statements and result of the investigation as carried out by police to submit that no case is made out but learned Trial Court merely on the basis of statements recorded under Ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., have discarded the FR without assigning proper reason. He further submitted that learned Trial Court have made errors while taking cognizance and ignoring the reasons of closure as submitted by police. He further submitted that none of the appellant was authorized to attest any work or any voucher, therefore, specific allegation of forcing husband of complainant for attestation of voucher is thoroughly false. He further submitted that several allegations included entry in bathroom for outraging the modesty and others were raised but no specific incident and time was mentioned by complainant, therefore, these allegations are baseless and without any foundation.