IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A fit case to exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(2) Very entrustment of the investigation into the matter and continuing the investigation by the DSP would not amount to a fair investigation.

ORDER

H.P. Sandesh, J.—This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is the party-in-person seeking the following reliefs:—

(a) to quash the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.6 in C.Misc.No.674/2020 dated 9.12.2020 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru in Crime No.82/2020 filed by Dharmastala P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 376 of IPS, which is at Annexure-A.

(b) to issue direction to respondent No.3 to refer the Crime No.82/2020 to COD.

(c) to issue direction to initiate action against Mr.Sandesh, the Inspector of Police and Mr.Pavan, the Sub-Inspector of Police Dharmastala P.S. and staff Radha, Aslam and others, who were on duty on the date of the incident.

(d) to grant such other order/relef as deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner in the petition has contended that in the month of August, 2020, she had lodged the complaint with the Chamarajpet P.S. for having lost her laptop. Based on the complaint, she was following up the matter with the police station and FIR is also registered in Crime No.80/2020. Respondent No.6, who was investigating the matter collected the phone number of the petitioner and in the pretext of investigating the case, started calling the petitioner and also messaging her in the night. He sought for financial assistance of Rs.12 lakhs from the petitioner which she refused. Then he expressed that he is in love with her which she did not encourage. Then he started behaving like a good guy and expressed his desire to meet her personally for which she refused. Later he called her for investigation and took her to COD office. Then on 08.11.2020, he called her and requested to meet and then they both met, had lunch and he requested her to marry him and then at 8.00 p.m. took her to his house to meet his parents and since the door was locked, he took her to the terrace and forced her for sexual intercourse for which she resisted and said that it is only after marriage. Respondent No.6 proposed to get her married at Dharmastala and told her that he would meet on 09.11.2020 for shopping for the marriage and also to book train ticket. Then when the petitioner called him at the time of booking ticket, he told that he is on duty and held up with work, and so asked her to book the ticket. Believing him, the petitioner booked the ticket on her own and later, when she was at the Lalitha Jewelers, Malleshwaram, she again called him as he promised her that he would come to buy jewelry. He gave the same answer and said that he would meet her at the railway station at 6 p.m. Thus, he made her to spend the amount on the assurance of marrying her.

3. Both of them went to Dharmastala to get married with the arrangement being made by the petitioner like buying Thali and Chain and booking train ticket. The jewelry receipt and train tickets are produced herewith as Annexures-C and C1 and that on 10.11.2020, at about 3.30 a.m., they reached Dharmastala and he booked a room at Gangothri and at that time, respondent No.6 tired to have sexual intercourse. The petitioner resisted the same. However, he had sexual intercourse with her against her wish and committed rape on her. Later, he pacified her and both of them went to Dharmastala Temple to get married, but the respondent No.6 had not brought any document for the marriage. So they came out and on enquiry with the flower vendor, they came to know that in a place called Kuthayaru, they will perform marriage without document and however, they will give in writing about the performance of marriage so that one can register the marriage in any place. Accordingly, they bought cloths, ring to the toe and other things required for the marriage. At that time, respondent No.6 said he has kidney stone for which petitioner took him to the doctor and doctor gave him OR