Blatantly false & Malicious Rape case on MAN NOT even in INDIA ! Case closed & criminal CrPc 195 on fakerape woman

Full credits to Assistant Police Inspector Mr A D Kamble of Maharashtra Police & Judge Hon Mr V N Girwalkar for closing a blatantly #falsegangrape #falserape case filed by a female and for initiating proceedings u/s 195 CrPC against her hopefully to land her JAIL FOR such a blatantly FALSE case

• Gist
• Woman file False rape claiming she was GANG RAPED by two and filimed by a third in a car when she went to meet them for a JOB. It turns out the neither main accused male was in India, NOR his accomplice even in the spot, NOR that car which was given as kidnap and rape vehicle even owned by the accused on date of incident
• Magistrate closes cases and orders initiation of criminal case against false rape filing woman

CRI. M. A. NO. 106/2020.
Manish v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors.
CNR No. MHST16­000888­2020.Exh. 01.
MHST160008882020

ORDER

BELOW EXH. 01 IN CRI. M. A. NO. 106/2020.(In continuation of Order dated 22.12.2020 passed at Exh.01, this order is passed)

1.This is an application for holding preliminary inquiry under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in order to launch the complaint against respondent no. 2 to 6 under Section 199,200, 203, 205, 209 and 211 of Indian Penal Code.

2.For the purpose of making preliminary inquiry about allegations made in this application, this Court passed an order below Exh. 1 on 22.12.2020 and thereby called the original record and proceedings of B summary report, decidedly this Court on 15.12.2020.

3.Before further discussion, it is necessary to make mention here that in the case of Union of India and othersv/s. Haresh Milani 2017(4) Mh.L.J.441, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that, it is not necessary to hear the other side while making preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, in view of this authority,I have not issued notice to any of the respondents.

4.For the purpose of preliminary inquiry, I have read entire original record of the B summary report filed by the investigating officer in Crime No. 08/2020 under Section376(d), 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Wai police station. I have also readoriginal record of protest petition which was filed by informant against B summary report. It would be apt tomention here that this Court by its common order dated15.12.2020 has accepted B summary report and rejected theprotest petition.

5.Informant had lodged First Information report bearing No. 08/2020 (in short FIR) on dated 18.01.2020 at Wai police station and stated that present applicant and one Bhisham Parwani committed rape on her person under promise to give her job as receptionist in Hotel at Panchgani.It is alleged in FIR that, on 24.07.2019, these accused had committed rape on her person at isolated place on Wai to Panchgani road in a vehicle bearing No MH­12­JU­9778. It is further alleged that, while committing rape by present applicant and his friend Bhisham Parwani, accused No. 3 Ravindra Waghmare had taken photo of alleged incident from his cell phone. On the basis of FIR lodged by informant, the Crime No. 08/2020 came to be registered at Wai police station under Section 376(d), 323, 504, 506 read with Section34 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Assistant Police Inspector, A. D. Kamble has carried out the investigation of the said crime. During investigation, he prepared spot panchnama, recorded statement of witnesses, got recorded statement of informant under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai. During investigation, he collected Call Details Report (in Short CDRs) of the mobile phone of informant, present applicant and Bhisham Parwani. During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant was in foreign country on the date of alleged incident. Therefore, he collected the report from Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Mumbai and Report of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. As per the said reports, investigating officercame to a conclusion, that on the date of alleged incident,present applicant was not in India. During investigation, itwas revealed to I.O., that on the date of alleged incident, Bhisham Parwani was also not present at a place of alleged incident. Rather, he was present at Pune. It further revealed toI.O., that the vehicle bearing No. MH­12­JU­9778 was sold out by the present applicant to one Sandip Thorave on08.09.2018. Therefore, I.O. had collected the R.C. book of the said vehicle and also recorded statement of Chamandeep singh Bombaywale under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter come the to conclusion that on the date of alleged incident, said vehicle was not in possession of present applicant as well as Bhisham Parwani. On the basis of material collected in investigation, I.O. come to a conclusion that FIR lodged by informant is false and maliciously false and therefore, he has filed B summary report in Court.

7.After filing of B summary report, say of informant came to be called. After service of notice, informant appeared in the proceeding and resisted B summary report by filing protest petition. In her protest petition, she reiterated her contentions made in FIR. She also raised some other ground sin protest petition such as police have not mentioned date of alleged incident in FIR which was stated by her at the time of lodging of FIR. She alleged that during investigation, I.O., hasn’t conducted DNA test of present applicant and BhishamParwani.. She alleged that I. O. has not made any investigation about mobile phone of accused No. 3 Ravindra Waghmare by which he had taken photograph of alleged incident. She alleged that I.O. has not made any investigation about WhatsApp calls and messages of the mobile phone of present applicant. She further alleged that, in collusion with present applicant and Bhisham Parwani, the I.O. has submitted false B summary report by conducting one sided investigation.

8.This Court has accepted the B summary report on the following main grounds:

­a On the basis of report of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India New Delhi and on the basis of report of the office of Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Mumbai, it reveals that on the date of alleged incident, present applicant was in abroad.

b On the basis of CDR of the mobile phone of present applicant as well as Bhisham Parwani, it reveals that they were not present at the alleged spot of incident on the date and time of alleged incident.

c On the basis of R.C. book of vehicle bearing No. MH­12­JU­9778 and in view of statement of witness Chamandeep singh Bombaywale, it reveals that on the date of alleged incident present applicant was not owner and possessor of the said vehicle and the said vehicle was present in front of Gurudwara, Nanded.

9.On the basis of above mentioned grounds and on perusal of entire record of B summary report, I came to the conclusion that during investigation of above said crime, I.O. has touched all material aspects of investigation of this Crime and therefore, I have accepted the B summary report.

10.I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, in-spite of knowledge that the Fir lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.

11.Therefore, I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No.08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.

12.Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i)of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise officer of this Court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court.

Therefore, Proceed to pass following order :­

:: O R D E R ::

1. Application is partly allowed.
2. S. D. Dhekane, Assistant Superintendent of Civil and Criminal Court, Wai is authorised and directed to file a Written Complaint against the respondent No. 2 Ruchika Pradeep Meher as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.The record of present application as well as original record of B summary report and protest petition shall be tagged with that complaint.

4.The proceeding is dropped against respondent No.3 to 6.

Date :­ 24.12.2020.
(V. N. Girwalkar)
Place:­ Wai.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai.

C E R T I F I C A T E

“ I certify that this Judgment / Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment / Order.”

Order directly dictated on : 24.12.2020.
Order checked and signed on : 24.12.2020.
Uploaded by : A. M. Agawane (Stenographer)
Uploaded on : 24.12.2020.

India 2020 : Fake Rape filed Aug 2020, withdrawn compromised by Dec 2020 ! Delhi HC Quash Order

Notes : A Woman files a #Rape complaint which was converted to FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi. and accused booked under ipc376 etc. She appears in person at Delhi High court on December 4th 2020 and claims that was a FALSE complaint Filed after an altercation !!! Just as simple as that !!! Court accepts her unconditional apology and quashes case as it is COMPROMISED between parties !! Pertinent to note that the accused is a MBA and is trying to join Indian civil services !!!

Delhi High Court

Lalit Kumar Vats vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 4 December, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision :04.12.2020
CRL.M.C. 2384/2020
LALIT KUMAR VATS ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr. Roshan Santhalia and Mr. Sholab Arora, Advs.

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State

W/SI Chandra Kanta, PS Kapashera Prosecutrix in person

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. 16804/2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
3. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Notice issued.
5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by the respondent no.2 and with the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that matter has been compromised between petitioner and the prosecutrix.
7. The Prosecutrix is personally present in Court and has been identified by W/SI Chandra Kanta/IO of the case. She states that FIR was lodged out of anger reason being she and petitioner had an altercation on 09.08.2020. To this effect, she has not only filed affidavit but she also sought apology from this Court.
8. Since prosecutrix has made wrong statement which culminated into the present FIR, therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted under the law, however, she seeks unconditional apology and submits that she is a married woman having two children and her matrimonial life will be destroyed if the present case is sent for trial.
9. Her unconditional apology is accepted.
10. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is an heinous offence, but when the respondent No.2/complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and file affidavits before this Court, stating that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted.
11. This Court is conscious about the dictum of the Supreme Court in terms of seriousness of the case, however, keeping in view the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further. Moreover, petitioner is a well-educated person. He holds various educational degrees including MBA and CS-Executive, as evidenced by the documents annexed hereto as Annexure P-6 . The Petitioner is currently preparing for CS-Professional and UPSC examinations. Continuation of the proceedings will affect his prospects in clearing examinations.
12. For the reasons afore-recorded, quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J DECEMBER 04, 2020
ms

Delhi: Woman lodges false ‘rape-in-bus’ complaint for reaching office late, Source TOI

Delhi: Woman lodges false ‘rape-in-bus’ complaint for reaching office late | Delhi News – Times of India

TNN | Updated: Jul 19, 2020, 05:56 IST 2 minutes

Representative image of a bus, NOT connected to news

---

NEW DELHI: A woman in south Delhi had allegedly lodged a false rape complaint to avoid being pulled up by her employer for reaching late to work.
The woman filed a complaint at the Okhla police station at 3pm, alleging that she had been raped by a group of men in a moving bus when she was going to Nehru Place from Badarpur. She showed scratch marks on her arms.

Police registered a case and formed teams to scan CCTV footage on the said route. The footage showed that the RTV, which she had boarded, did not deviate from its route or stop anywhere on way. The woman’s wounds were also medically examined.
The area joint commissioner and DCP personally monitored the probe till 12.30am. However, there were discrepancies in the woman’s statement. When cops verified her version and asked her to record her statement with the magistrate it was found that she had lodged a false complaint.

She told the magistrate that she had a fight with a friend on Friday morning. They also had a scuffle during which she had suffered injuries on her arm. She told cops that due to the argument with the man, she reached office late. Her colleagues asked about her injuries and she told them she had have been sexually assaulted in the bus. Her colleagues insisted that she registered a case and accompanied her to the Okhla police station.

False & Vexatious 498a and Rape cases on in laws quashed. False 498a also quashed. MP HC

False & Vexatious 498a and Rape cases on in laws quashed. False 498a also quashed. MP HC

Husband files divorce claiming that wife was previously married to some one else and lived with him, hid that fact and remarried the current poor fella. Wife appears one time for the divorce and then promptly files 498a on husband approx 1.5 months later. In that 498a there are NO allegations of rape on in laws, but later wife improvises and also files fake Rape Cases on In laws. Husband also wins the 498a case on merits at Magistrate court. Now All fake cases are quashed by Hon HC. The Hon court sees thru the abuse of process of law.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

BENCH AT GWALIOR

SINGLE BENCH

Cr.R.No.87/2017

(Manoj Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.)

&

Cr.R.No.447/2017

(Pradumn Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.)

——————————————————————————————–

Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Aditya Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

——————————————————————————————-

Present : Hon. Mr. Justice Anand Pathak

ORDER

{Passed on 12th day of May, 2020}

1. Since both the petitions carry same factual tenor and texture and subject matter is also same therefore, both these criminal revision petitions taken into consideration simultaneously and are decided by the common order. For convenience sake, facts of Cr.R.No.87/2017 are taken into consideration.

2. The instant criminal revisions have been preferred by the petitioners/accused against the order dated 10.01.2017 (in Cr.R.No.87/2017) and order dated 06.02.2017 (in Cr.R.No.447/2017) passed in Case No.208/2016 whereby in sum and substance the respective applications of petitioners under Section 227/228 of Cr.P.C. for discharge have been rejected.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that on 01.05.2014 marriage was solemnized between Pradumn Dubey (son of present petitioners) i.e. petitioner No.1 in Cr.R.No.447/2017 and respondent No.2 Smt. Richa Bhargawa as per Hindu rites and rituals at Guna. It appears that due to some domestic incompatibility, respondent No.2/wife started living at her parental home at Kolaras, District Shivpuri (M.P.) since 24.02.2015. The dispute between the couple could not be resolved, therefore, on alleged grounds of living adulterous life as well as cruelty committed by respondent No.2, then husband-Pradumn Dubey filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2/wife on 05.04.2016.

4. In his petition, he levelled specific allegations about leading adulterous life and prior to marriage, conceiving from some other male and later on aborted. Husband levelled specific allegation against respondent No.2 of having relationship with one, Ashutosh Pandey. As per allegations, she lived with Ashutosh Pandey at his village Nohrikala as his wife for sometime and after dispute with him, she came back to her parental home and thereafter, marriage with Pradumn Dubey (petitioner No.1 of Cr.R.447/2017) solemnized. Later on, this fact came to the knowledge of husband through call details of her mobile as well as from other source. All details of leading adulterous life by respondent No.-2 have been narrated in divorce petition. Respondent No.2 contested the case and led her part of evidence.

5. After considering the rival submissions and evidence, Principal Judge, Family Court Guna vide judgment dated 06.09.2017 allowed the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner-Pradumn Dubey and decree of divorce was issued and by way of divorce couple declared separate.

6. It is worthwhile to mention the fact that on 05.04.2016 divorce petition was filed and on 05.05.2016 wife caused her appearance in the Court and immediately thereafter, on 15.05.2016 she lodged FIR under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, showing the dates of alleged offence between 01.05.2014 i.e. date of marriage to 12.10.2015, the date from which she started living separately. In the said FIR, there is not even a whisper in respect of allegation of committing attempt to rape and outraging her modesty by her brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey (Petitioner No.2 in Cr.R.447/2017).

7. On 23.06.2016, she lodged another FIR vide Crime No.327/2016 at Police Station Guna Kotwali for the offence under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC against all the petitioners for committing the offence of attempt to rape and outraging her modesty. In the said FIR, period of incident shown to be from 05.06.2014 to 28.02.2015. Perusal of FIR indicates the date of event as 05.06.2014 at Haridwar and thereafter, one more incident of attempt to rape by her brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey around one year back from the date of FIR.

8. Investigation carried out and charge-sheet submitted. Trial Court framed the charges against all the petitioners (except petitioner No.2 in Cr.R.No.447/2017) in respect of Sections 498-A, 376/109, 354/109 of IPC and brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey (petitioner No.2 of Cr.R.447/2017) was saddled with Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC .

9. Meanwhile, divorce petition filed by the husband-Pradumn Dubey was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017, in which this fact has been considered that respondent No.2 lodged a false FIR to the offence of attempt to rape to exert pressure over the petitioners.

10. Meanwhile on 26.09.2019 during the pendency of present petitions, first FIR lodged against all the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act also resulted in acquittal of all the petitioners on merits and the said judgment dated 26.09.2019 is on record.

11. Therefore, through this revision petition, petitioners have challenged the rejection of application for discharge preferred by them under Sections 227/228 of Cr.P.C.. In Cr.R.No.447/2017, petitioners (husband and brother- in-law of respondent No.2-wife) also preferred revision against order dated 06.02.2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners in respect of offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC for Rahul Dubey and Section 498-A, 376/109 and 354/109 of IPC against Pradumn Dubey.

12. It is the submissions of counsel for the petitioners that it is factually clear that FIR of leveling allegations of attempt to rape and outrage her modesty are complete abuse of the process of Court and such process cannot be allowed for harassment. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.

13. It is further submitted that after filing of divorce petition by the husband as counter blast, respondent No.2 lodged FIR under Section 498-A of IPC without mentioning therein any allegations of attempt to rape whereas she filed the said FIR on 15.05.2016 and at that point of time, if subsequent FIR is seen then it is clear that she referred the incident dated 05.06.2014 and the incident is of one year thereafter. Therefore, she could have narrated the said allegations in her first FIR filed under Section 498-A of IPC. It appears that when she realized that she is not getting sufficient material to harass the present petitioners only on the basis of offence under Section 498-A of IPC then she resorted to another FIR including the offence under Sections 376 and 354 of IPC, which is clear abuse of process of law and she cannot be permitted to start litigation at her whims on flimsy pretext and harass the petitioner till eternity. He referred the vagueness made by the prosecutrix in her written complaint, FIR and police statement/statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that although this is revision petition but since this Court exercises the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., also then scope of revision is not limited. He relied upon the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 331 to submit that even in revisional jurisdiction if the injustice is caused then same can be taken care of. Here in the present case petitioners are constantly harassed by the wife. FIR is a delayed FIR and an afterthought.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition.

15. Counsel for the complainant also raised the point regarding merits of the case and submits that trial Court would decide the case and allegations prima facie apparently exist and therefore, same needs to be tried through leading evidence.

16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy/documents.

17. In the present case, petitioners have filed the revision petitions in which one is against order of discharge and another is against order of framing charge. Scope of revision is not so limited as tried to be projected by the counsel for respondent because revisional Court can see the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed as well as the regularity of any proceeding of any Court below.

18. Therefore, looking to the scope as provided in Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to look into correctness or propriety of any order passed by the Sessions Court. So far as present case is concerned, respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on 23.06.2016 by filing a written complaint. Contents of written complaint and FIR are almost identical. Later on, her police statement was taken on same day i.e. 23.06.2016 then also she repeated the allegations but next day in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, she made her statement only in one para and the same is reproduced as under for ready reference:-

19. Perusal of the said statement indicates that she referred the role of her brother-in-law-Rahul Dubey but she nowhere refers the role of her husband or her father and mother-in-law (petitioners of Cr.R.No.87/2017). The statement recorded just after one day i.e. 24.06.2016 therefore, it cannot be assumed that by the efflux of time, she forgot the details of incident. She tries to improve upon some contents qua Rahul Dubey which were not earlier lodged in the written complaint, FIR or police statement. Material contradictions and omissions exist in all her statements and contents of her written complaint as well as F.I.R. This shows her intention.

20. This fact has material bearing that after marriage (on 01.05.2014) her brother-in-law- Rahul Dubey started misbehaving with her and first incident is of dated 05.06.2014 one month after the date of marriage. Apparently such allegation comes under the doubt for the reason that if she was so upset by the advances of her brother-in-law then she should have immediately reported her family members, husband as well as father/mother-in-law or to the police. She left her matrimonial home on 24.02.2015 and the said fact reflected in the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guna. When she left her matrimonial home within 10 months of her marriage on 24.02.2015 and thereafter, if any advances were made by the brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey then she had one more opportunity to raise her voice and/or to mention the said fact in earlier FIR. The Police Station Kolaras District Shivpuri registered the case vide Crime No.204/2016 against all four petitioners of the instant case for alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on which trial was conducted before the JMFC Kolaras, District Shivpuri and vide judgment dated 26.09.2019 the said case resulted into acquittal of all the four petitioners/accused.

21. Reference of one compromise deed (Ex.P-3 of the said case) also finds place in judgment of the trial Court in which she accepted the fact that she was not allowed restrained by the petitioner/husband to go to the place of her brother-in-law (thtkth -Akhil) because her husband did not like the idea of going and staying for day’s together at her sister and brother-in-law’s place. In the said compromise deed dated 03.12.2014, she accepted that she wants to live happily with her matrimonial family and she would not be restrained by the family members/petitioners.

22. The facts of misbehavior by Rahul Dubey could have reflected in the settlement deed dated 03.12.2014 because as per the allegations, first incident of misbehavior by brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey was committed on 05.06.2014 at Haridwar therefore, on 03.12.2014, she could have referred this fact in compromise deed and could have ensured her modesty and chastity but same does not find place in the settlement deed or in the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by the JMFC, Kolaras. On this ground also, it appears that she filed the instant cases on false pretext just for harassment.

23. Interestingly, first FIR under Section 498-A of IPC was filed by the prosecutrix at Police Station Kolaras on 15.05.2016 and after one month she again filed an FIR with same allegations of dowry demand but with addition of Section 354 and 376 of IPC. Second FIR was filed at Police Station Guna Kotwali, District Guna. This shows the bend of mind and motive of respondent No.2 to keep harassing the petitioners on the pretext or the other. These facts create sufficient doubt about the actual disposition of respondent No.2 and her intention to wreak vengeance. Criminal law cannot be used as a tool for oppression, harassment and embarrassment to the common man. Here respondent No.2 tried to misuse the process of law for extending harassment to the petitioners. She knows that all petitioners are Government Teachers and their entanglement in criminal proceedings would cost them heavily. Therefore, she is enjoying peevish pleasure.

24. When divorce proceedings successfully pursued by the petitioner/husband Pradumn Dubey and when all four petitioners successfully contested the trial of Section 498-A of IPC then again relegating them back for the trial for same offence under Section 498-A of IPC would be travesty of justice because long drawn litigation itself is a type of punishment or at-least harassment to the common man which cannot be permitted in those cases where malice of complainant is apparent on record.

25. Even otherwise on merits, no allegations of attributes of Section 376 or 354 of IPC existed or reiterated by the complainant in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. qua other petitioners because allegations are only against Rahul Dubey but since the mens rea or ill-motive is apparent which is being established by the documents available on record, therefore, this Court cannot sit with blind eyes to allow the continuation of the abuse of process of law. Interestingly, her case suffers from delay and latches also because she could not explain delay and factual inconsistency in her complaint and statements.

26. In the case of Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 (9) SCC 766 the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:- “15.But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.”

27. In the cumulative analysis and going through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (Supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is case where interference would advance the cause of justice therefore, this Court intends to allow both the revisions filed by the petitioners.

28. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any ground to proceed further in the litigation and trial Court erred in rejecting the application under Section 227/228 of Cr.P.C. for discharge as well as erred in framing charge as per impugned order dated 10.01.2017 (in Cr.R.No.87/2017) and order dated 06.02.2017 (in Cr.R.No.447/2017) and both the impugned orders are hereby set-aside and no case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

29. Resultantly, petitioners are discharged from the clutches of charges under Sections 498-A and 376/109, 354/109 of IPC and petitioner Rahul Dubey for the offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC. They are set free.

30. E-copy/Certified copy, whichever is available, of this order be provided to the petitioners and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

31. Both the revision petitions stand allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Ashish* (Anand Pathak)

Judge

ASHISH

CHAURASIA

2020.05.12

18:38:05

-07’00’

At least 50 men targeted & several crores possibly extorted by FAKE RAPE gang of 2 women & 18 others. Delhi police busts gang !

Delhi police has busted yet another fake case filing gang that targeted young professionals and extorted many lakhs from each of them. the total extortion amount could run to several crores according to delhi police who busted the Fake Rape gang !!

News from link shared below :

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-ncr-gang-threatening-fake-rape-cases-busted/story-nKtJo4Xl6vXOWoj3Vt6LQL.html?fbclid=IwAR1OTtBQwGZ4nsXW8YAXJQJ9I8JjqLHzmmA07_gOPz9J57AzaL9eeT7-Em8