DALEEP SINGH Vs. MAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 1-6-1991 passed by the learned MJM, Sardar Shahar, whereby he took cognizance for the offence under S. 354, IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition lie in a narrow compass and can be recapitulated like this. It appears that on 26-6-87, the respondent filed a criminal complaint in the court of MJM, Sardar Shahar for the offences under S. 376/51l, 323, 354 and 509, IPC against, the petitioner alleging that she was working as a Class IV employee in Seth Budhmal Dugar Govt. College, Sardar Shahar, wherein the petitioner was posted as Principal; that on 10-1-87 at about 9.15 a.m., when she went inside the office of the petitioner and was cleaning the toilet attached to his office, the petitioner came inside the toilet, bowed down over her back; caught hold of her breast and attempted to commit rape with her; and that thereupon she raised alarm which attracted Chowkidar Noratmal, who was working nearby in front of Rooms Nos. 8 and 9 of the college building. It was further alleged that on seeing Norat Mal, the petitioner, who was under intoxication, came out of the toilet and sat on the chair of his office and threatened her as well as Noratmal that in case, they complained against him, they would be removed from service. It was further alleged that due to fear of being removed from the service, she did not lodge any report in the police station but complained against him to the Director, Education Department and other senior officers in writing but no action was taken; that thereupon she along with Ruda Ram Bhat, President of the Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, Sardar Shahar and the Provincial Secretary of the said Sangh met the Education Minister but no action was taken. She again sent a complaint dated 12-2-87 against the petitioner to the Director, College Education, Jaipur and forwarded copies thereof to Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Churu. In the State Legislative Assembly also, the question in respect of the said incident was put by the MLAs of the opposition side for taking action against the petitioner. It was also alleged that her complaint was sent by the S.P. to S.H.O., P.S., Sardar Shahar, who did not take any action; that since the petitioner was an influential and resourceful person, no action has been taken and, therefore, she was filing the criminal complaint in the court. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 28-8-87 by sending a copy of the complaint, directed the S.H.O., P.S., Sardar Shahar to send the factual report and the progress of the investigation, alleged to be pending in the police station. The S.H.O. after recording the statements of complainant Smt. Magan, Noratmal, Ruda Ram, Ratanlal and Smt. Sheela Devi submitted his report dated 24-10-87 and submitted that in the past, the then S.H.O. had also conducted an enquiry into the matter and found that no such incident took place and that a false complaint was made against the petitioner. He further submitted that on his enquiry, the facts mentioned in the criminal complaint were found to be false and that the S. P. Churu vide his order dated 8-4-87 has already ordered for filing a complaint under S. 182, Cr. P.C. against Smt. Magan. The S.H.O. also submitted the copy of the previous enquiry report dated 24-3-87. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 19-12-87 directed the respondent to adduce her evidence. However, for one reason or the other, the respondent Smt. Magan sought adjournments and examined herself under S. 200, Cr. P.C. as late as on 28-1-89. The statements of her witnesses namely Noratmal and Ruda Ram were recorded under S. 202, Cr. P.C. on 25-3-89 and 21-4-90. It may be mentioned here that on 8-10-87, the S.H.O., P. S. Sardar Shahar submitted a criminal complaint against the respondent for the offence under S. 182, Cr. P.C. in the court of learned MJM, who took cognizance against her on the same day for the said offence. On 1-6-91, an application under S. 473, Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein she submitted that though, the criminal complaint was filed by her on 26-10-87 but delay in taking cognizance has been caused bonafidely in this judicial proceeding and the same may be condoned and cognizance may be taken against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by his impugned order dt. 1-6-91 allowed the said application, condoned the delay holding that though the evidence in the case was closed long back and the case was fixed for hearing arguments for last one and a quarter years but the delay was caused bonafidely for which the respondent had shown sufficient reasons and took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under S. 354, I.P.C. only. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the learned lower court in extenso.