MANEESH PURUSHWANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by order dtd. 26/11/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases) No. 1, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 388/2018, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sec. 376 of India Penal Code.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a missing person report was lodged by sister of the prosecutrix on 6/9/2017 at 19:44 PM, reporting missing of her sister since 5/9/2017. Prosecutrix returned back on 8/9/2017, her statement was recorded by the police wherein she mentioned that she went on her own to Ajmer, she called up her sister's fiance Shubham and then Shubham had brought her from Ajmer. Prosecutrix herself and her mother on the same day gave a letter to the SHO that they do not want to proceed with the missing person report. The missing person report was then closed on 9/11/2017. On the same day prosecutrix filed the present FIR bearing No. 558/2017 at 9:40 PM. On 18/9/2017, prosecutrix submitted an affidavit to the Police, which was signed by the prosecutrix and her mother to the effect that she does not want to proceed with her FIR No. 558/2017. On the next date i.e. 19/9/2017, in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that petitioner was having relationship with her on the pretext that he would marry her and threatened the prosecutrix that if she does not agree to the relationship he would get her removed from service. FIR was also lodged by father of the petitioner on 28/9/2017 bearing FIR No. 604/2017 alleging that the prosecutrix her sister's fiance Shubham and mother of prosecutrix are blackmailing his son and demanding Rs.60.00 lacs. In the FIR lodged by father of the petitioner. Police arrested Shubham and has already submitted charge-sheet. Offence was found to be made out against the prosecutrix as well. However, the matter was kept pending under Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the prosecutrix as prosecutrix was not traceable.

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the fact of filing of affidavit was in the notice of the Investigating Officer, who has submitted the charge-sheet. It is contended that from the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that prosecutrix was in relationship with the petitioner, in the affidavit submitted by her before the police, she had specifically deposed that petitioner had never given her any assurance that he would marry her. It is contended that since the affidavit is part of the record and is admittedly given by the prosecutrix after lodging of the present FIR. The same ought to have been considered by the Court before framing charge.