The court emphasized that allegations of serious offences must be supported by credible evidence before an FIR is registered, and the failure to do so constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2020 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), in CC No. 5320/2020, whereby the learned Trial Court gave directions to the concerned DCP to lodge an FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the FIR which has been registered pursuant to the impugned order.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. A complaint was made by Respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking registration of FIR against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 and under Sections 307 /320/323/339/354/354A/354B/355/503/506/509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’). The petitioner and Respondent No.2 are neighbours and it is the case of Respondent No.2 that there is park adjoining the residence of the petitioner, and the backyard of the residence of Respondent No.2 adjoins the said park. Allegedly, the incident took place in the park which has been encroached by the petitioner. It is alleged that on 28.04.2020, at about 10:30pm, when Respondent No.2 entered the park for better cellular network, she noticed someone following her at a distance. Respondent No.2 could not get a clear picture of the said person, who moved into the darker zone of the park near the house of the petitioner. When Respondent No.2 started returning to her house, she noticed that the petitioner had quietly sneaked into the park and he started shouting that she had no right to be present in the park. Respondent No.2 tried to leave, however, the petitioner allegedly trapped her in an enclosure without leaving any means for Respondent No.2 to exit. The spot of incident was allegedly dark and the petitioner snatched the phone of Respondent No.2 and tossed the same towards his house. Thereafter, when Respondent No.2 tried to pick her phone from where it had fallen on a grassy patch, the petitioner allegedly pounced on her and pressed her breast. Respondent No.2 screamed, however, the petitioner threw her on the ground and tried to commit rape upon her in a dark part of the park. As per the allegations, Respondent No.2 was saved by her mother.

2.2. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate gave directions for registration of FIR upon observing that serious allegations of sexual assault have been made in the complaint. It was observed that the complaint was given on the very next date and it is unclear as to why the concerned IO and SHO had conducted a detailed inquiry and collected all the evidence when they were duty bound to register an FIR at the very first instant on receipt of such information. A report was also called from the DCP/ SWD as to why no action should be initiated against the concerned SHO for the lapse as well. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as under:

“It is evident from the allegations that serious allegations of sexual assault upon the complainant have been made in the complaint. The incident is though undisputed. The complaint has been given on the very next day of the incident. The fact that the complainant did not make any statement on the same day itself is without any merits as it is quite assumable that the victim is severely traumatized after such incidents. The fact that the complaint has been given on the next day cannot be assumed as an after thought. Further, it is observed that the IO and SHO concerned conducted a detailed inquiry and collected all the evidence. However, it is not understood as to under what circumstances they had conducted the inquiry