JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the instant petition is made to the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2016, State v. Yasmeen & others, by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned order, an application under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code") filed by respondent no. 2 has been allowed.

2. The case has chequered history. Briefly stated, it is as hereunder.

3. On 30.05.2014, one Smt. Shama Parveen, lodged an FIR under Section 376(2), 506 IPC and 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It was registered as FIR No. 118 of 2014, at P.S. Sahaspur, District Dehradun (“the FIR No. 118 of 2014"). According to it, her daughter aged 15 years then was raped by accused Furkan. The victim was taken in a hospital at Herbertpur, Dehradun, where Dr. Rekha gave some medicine due to which the condition of the victim deteriorated. One Kallu also threatened the informant to life.

4. The respondent no. 2, Smt. Yasmeen filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 631 of 2014 (“the first petition") for quashing the FIR No. 118 of 2014 filed by Smt. Shama Parveen. In the first petition, interim directions were issued on 05.06.2014 with the direction that no coercive steps should be taken against the respondent no. 2. It may be noted here that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Yasmeen had filed the first writ petition in the name of Dr. Rekha Rani. The investigation continued in the FIR No. 118 of 2014 and, after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet.

5. Thereafter, another petition was filed by respondent no. 2 Smt. Yasmeen impersonating herself as Dr. Rekha Gupta, which was registered as C-482 No. 669 of 2015 (“the second petition"). The second petition was dismissed on 05.06.2015. It appears that thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner moved C-482 Petition No. 1566 of 2015, Rekha Gupta v. State (“the third petition"), before this Court and it is then revealed that the first petition and second petition, which were filed in the name of Dr. Rekha Gupta were, in fact, filed by the respondent no. 2, Yasmeen, impersonating as Dr. Rekha Gupta. During the course of hearing of the third petition, the respondent no. 2 was present before the Court. She was questioned by the Court and what she stated has been reproduced by the Court in its order dated 04.01.2016, which is as hereunder :-

“Ms. Yasmeen is present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. Ms. Yasmeen has stated before me that she was working with Dr. S.B. Gupta in his clinic as Receptionist; she has joined the clinic of Dr. S.B. Gupta in the year 2010; Dr. Rekha Gupta (petitioner present in person) was not physically present in Vikas Nagar and was away from Vikas Nagar, therefore, Dr. S.B. Gupta has pressurized her to have physical relations with him. Further stated that in fact Dr. S.B. Gupta has forcefully made physical relations with her; fearing the loss of job, she kept on facing sexual harassment made by Dr. S.B. Gupta; Dr. S.B. Gupta has produced all the documents of other two petitions before her to sign as Dr. Rekha Rani, which she has signed under the pressure of Dr. S.B. Gupta. She further stated that Dr. S.B. Gupta has not only ruined her character but has also ruined her future by getting her signatures on other two petitions forcing her to sign those petitions as imposter of Rekha Rani. Further stated that Dr. Rekha Gupta, petitioner present in person, and her husband Dr. S.B. Gupta are in Government job, however, have opened and were running the clinic illegally showing Yasmeen as Dr. Rekha Rani. Further stated that Dr. Rekha Gupta was having complete knowledge that she (Yashmeen) was being pressurized to sign the papers as Dr. Rekha Gupta. Further stated that she and her husband Rashid Ali also attended the court proceedings and Mr. Rajat Mittal, Ad