PREETIBALA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Preetibala has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Kapasan in Criminal Case No.116/2015 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by the SHO, Police Station Kapasan.

(2.) The proceedings are assailed on the ground that only the court concerned where, the proceedings were initiated could have filed the complaint. Shri Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that as the complaint was filed by the SHO, Police Station Kapasan, the proceedings thereof are not maintainable as being barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 777 .

(3.) Per contra, Shri Narpat Chouhan, learned counsel representing the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They urged that the petitioner misused the police machinery by lodging a patently false FIR No.518/2014 at the Police Station Kapasan for the offences under Sections 376 and 376D IPC. Not only did the petitioner lodge a false case against Sunil Upadhyaya but during the course of investigation, she submitted application to the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range and the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh to arrest Sunil Upadhyay and Puran Salvi (against whom even the FIR had not been lodged). The FIR lodged by the petitioner was thoroughly investigated and during the course of investigation, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 30.03.2015 to the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh with an application stating therein that the accused Sunil Upadhyay had not committed rape with her and that the previous statements given by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. implicating the accused for such offence were incorrect. Accordingly, the I.O. found the prosecution story to be improved and submitted a negative final report in the court concerned and thereafter, proceeded to lodge the impugned complaint, for the offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner in the court of the ACJM, Kapasan. The learned ACJM, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 IPC by the order dated 21.04.2015 which is assailed in the instant misc. petition.