Point of Law: Right to protection from sexual harassments is universally recognised basic human rights - Common minimum requirement of right has received global acceptance. This right has been embodied in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of Constitution of India

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. T. H. Hazarika, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the petitioner, namely Sri Suresh Garodia, for quashing of proceedings of GR Case No.13706/16, under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Bharalumukh Police Station Case No. 580/16, and also for quashing the order dated 04.07.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guwahati, in GR Case No. 13706/16, for taking cognizance under Section 376/506 of the IPC. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 04.07.2017, the learned Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner by rejecting the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of this criminal petition, is briefly stated as under:-

“On 04.12.2016, the informant-Smti. ‘X’, (name withheld) lodged one FIR before the Bharalumukh Police Station Guwahati, alleging inter alia, amongst others, that she was raped by Sri Suresh Garodia, while she was 15 years old and as a result of which, she gave birth to a child namely, Mr. Akhil Ahmed Garodia (actual name withheld) on 07.04.1983, when she was only 16 years old. And Sri Suresh Garodia coerced her not to lodge any FIR and threatened her of dire consequences if she takes legal recourse and she was scared of him because he was a very powerful and influential person. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the Bharalumukh Police Station registered Bharalumukh P.S Case No. 580/16, under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the same. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded the statement of the victim girl/informant and her son, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The blood samples of all the three persons were collected and sent for testing at Forensic Science Laboratory at Kolkata, and collected the report. The report indicated that Akhil Ahmed Garodia, is the son of Sri Suresh Garodia. During investigation, the I.O. also found that Sri Suresh Garodia provided cash amount and other facilities to the victim/informant’s son. And due to greed of property of Sri Suresh Garodia, his son with the aid of his mother lodged an FIR after a period of 34 (thirty four) years, and due to the property dispute between Sri Suresh Garodia and his son, this case has been lodged. The I.O. also found that the dispute is civil nature and therefore, he returned the case in final report with a prayer to discharge accused Suresh Garodia from the case. Thereafter, the learned Court below has issued a notice to the informant, and accordingly, the informant appeared before the learned Court below on 31.05.2017, and filed one petition before the learned court below for not accepting the final report so submitted by the I.O., on the ground that the report of ossification test as well as DNA report is in favour of the informant and on the basis of the same came to the conclusion that the accused Suresh Garodia is the biological father of her son and that the I.O. had returned the case in final report as Sri Suresh Garodia had already paid cash amount and other benefits to the informant’s son, but, she had suffered both mentally and physically and she also suffered irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated in terms of money in the event of accepting the Final Report submitted by the I.O. Thereafter, the learned court below, considering the materials available on record, and the conclusion given by the I.O. that the accused is the biological father of the informant’s son and also considering the admission made by the accused and further that he has paid some amount to him, rejected the Final Re