Golmati Bai vs Kapil Prajapati And another

Petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the complaint case No.279/2016 registered against the petitioner.

Facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before Session Judge, Narsinghpur alleging that respondent No.1 is a child below the age of 18 years. The petitioner is a matured lady. She used to harass and commit sexual harassment to respondent No.1. She lodged a false report against the respondent No.1 to exert a pressure on him to obey her instructions. Learned Court below after recording the evidence of respondent No.1 has registered a criminal case No.279/2016 against the petitioner under Sections 3 (ga) (gha), 4, 11 and 12 of POCSO Act and issued a notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court, thereafter, she was released on bail and respondent No.1 examined the witnesses under the head of evidence before charge.

Being aggrieved by that complaint, petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. alleging that respondent No.1 had forcibly committed rape with her when she was alone in her house. On counter blast, respondent had filed this complaint to pressurize the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 is not a minor. He is more than 18 years of the age and is aged about 19 years and is falsely alleging his age below 18 years. Complaint has been filed by the respondent No.1 with a malafide intentions to create an undue pressure on the petitioner, so that, the petitioner may be pressurized for the compromise in the case registered at the instance of the petitioner against respondent and prayed to set aside the complaint and proceedings related to that complaint.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent is a minor. The report lodged by the petitioner against the respondent was registered as crime No.207/2015 at Police Station Mungwani. Charge sheet has been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board because during the course of investigation, it was found that accused was below the age of 18 years. Petitioner committed sexual abuse against respondent No.1, therefore, this petition is filed on the wrong facts and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents filed along with the complaint, it seems that there is a dispute between the parties that the petitioner lodged a report on 16.08.2015 in the Police Station Mungwani on 14.08.2015 alleging that when her husband gone outside for earning bread, she was at her home. In the night, respondent came to her home and knocked the door, petitioner opened the door, he got entered into her house and committed forcibly rape with her and fled away from the spot. She informed this incident to her husband and lodged a report on 16.08.2015 against the respondent No.1 under Section 376, 456 and 506 of IPC and charge sheet submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board against the respondent.

On perusal of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent against the petitioner, it emerges out that respondent alleged in this complaint that he is a minor below the age of 18 years when petitioner remained alone in her house she called respondent No.1 and sexually exploited him and forced to develop sexual relation. When the accused denied to come to the home of petitioner, she threatened to lodge a false report against the respondent and intimidated him if he does as per her wishes, she will take back the case which she has been lodged against him.

After recording the evidence of respondent and witnesses, learned Session Court has registered a case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3 (ga) (gha), 4, 11 and 12 of POCSO Act. In the evidence before charge, respondent examined himself as witness No.1 and his father Shankar Lal Prajapati as witness No.2.

In the cross examination, PW-1 Kapil has admitted that he has not narrated the incidident to anyone against the petitioner, he complained orally to his father. In para No.2 he admitted that on 09.02.2017, he appeared in the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission and also admitted that he is above the age of 18 years. Witness No.2 Shankar Prajapati who is the father of the respondent No.1 has admitted in para 12 of the cross examination that his family members knew that respondent No.1 always used to go in the house of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others [2008 (5) SCC 248] Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that appellant conducted a raid as per the direction of District Magistrate at the medical shop of respondent No.2 and lodged an FIR, a criminal case was registered against the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the appellant for demanding bribe and made some interpolation in the record. Hon'ble the Apex Court considered the case law of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal [AIR 1992 SC 604] and found that appellant being a government officer has conducted raid at the shop performing his official duty and complaint is a counter blast of action taken by him in his official capacity. Complainant filed a complaint against the appellant to rope the appellant in criminal case. Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that this type of action would amount to abuse the process of law and quash the criminal proceedings arising out on the basis of the complaint against appellant.

Facts of this petition, in hand, are that there is no dispute that respondent and petitioner are having a sexual relation. As per the petitioner, respondent No.1 forcibly committed rape without her consent and respondent has alleged in his complaint that petitioner called him and exploited him sexually. On his denial, she threatened to lodge a false report against him.

This may be a counter blast, but at this stage this Court can not consider that this complaint is a result of the counter blast of the criminal case lodged at the instance of the petitioner. In his statement PW-1 has categorically stated that after lodging the FIR, the petitioner again called respondent No.1 at her house and by threatening him she again exploited him sexually. He narrated the whole story to his father and his father took him to the Police Station and filed this complaint for the said alleged act of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner lodged FIR on 16.08.2015 and respondent No.1 filed the FIR on 13.04.2016 i.e. after 8 months of the incident. PW-1 Kapil, in his statement, disclosed the date of incident as 24.12.2015 i.e. after three months when petitioner lodged the FIR against the respondent No.1.

After perusal of the record and certified copy of the order sheet, the complaint case was fixed for the evidence before the charge. The petitioner is having an opportunity to argue all these facts before learned trial Court, and having an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced before the charge by respondent No.1 when there is a remedy to the petitioner to agitate this matter and argue the same before the trial Court. This Court is of the view that this Court should not quash the complaint prematurely.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.