Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 714
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. A. SANAP, J
Sau. Shalini W/o Kularam Choudhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. V. S. Lokhande
For the Respondents: Mr. A. R. Chutke, Mr. Yuvraj Humne
Delay in lodging an FIR does not inherently warrant discharge from charges; courts must consider if evidence presented justifies proceeding to trial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354-A(1) & (2) - Revision against discharge order of accused for allegations of molestation - Delay in FIR lodging not to be sole ground for discharge; court must evaluate evidence provided for prima facie case - Discharge application denied, case restored for framing charge. (Paras 9, 34, 35)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 239 - Court’s discretion in discharging accused not to consider the merits of evidence prematurely - Ruling on discharge applications emphasized in judicial precedents. (Paras 26, 31)
Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged molestation against non-applicant No.2 by alleging multiple incidents that occurred over several years, leading her to attempt self-harm. The report was filed years later after various complaints to authorities.
Findings of Court:
The delay is not necessarily fatal to prosecution; sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused.
Issues: Whether delay in lodging the FIR warrants discharge; whether sufficient evidence is present to indicate that an offence occurred.
Ratio Decidendi: Discharge shouldn’t rely on FIR delay; court at this stage assumes prosecution evidence is true to check for grounds of charge. Evidence quality is to be considered before any discharge claims are made. (Paras 17, 26)
Result: Application allowed; Magistrate’s discharge order set aside. The case is restored for trial.
01] Heard Mr. V.S. Lokhande, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Amit R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State and Mr. Yuvraj Humne, learned advocate for the non-applicant No.2. Perused the record and proceedings.
02] ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
03] In this revision application, challenge is to the order dated 04.04.2019 passed below Exh.10 in Regular Criminal Case No. 29/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bramhapuri, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to discharge non-applicant no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A (1) & (2) of IPC.
04] Facts leading to this case can be summarized as follows :-
The applicant is the informant. Non-applicant No.2 is the accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 29/2017. The applicant/ informant on 25.04.2017 lodged a report against non-applicant No.2/accused and made serious allegations against him. The informant and the accused at the relevant time were working as Assistant Teachers in Zilla Parishad Primary School No.4 at Bramhapuri. As far as the incident dated 16.08.2011 is concerned, it is stated that on 16.08.2011, the accused was working as an in-charge Principal of the said school. He had called the informant in his chamber under the pretext of writing some documents. When she started writing the document, accused from behind placed his hand on her shoulder and dragged the same upto her waist. He was terribly frightened. When she tried to get up, the accused requested her to satisfy his sexual lust. She left the said chamber, however, the accused pulled her saree. It is stated that thereafter on number of occasions, the accused behaved with her in indecent manner by touching her shoulder and her body.
05] It is stated that again on 04.08.2015 at about 1.00 p.m. she had gone to urinal. When she was about to close the door of the urinal, she saw that the accused was hiding in the urinal. The informant got scared and came out of the urinal. For the whole day she was crying in the school. In the evening, she narrated this incident to her husband. It is stated that since the children were grown up and well educated and in order to avoid defamation in the society, they did not lodge the report. The torture and indecent behaviour of the accused was such that she had tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body. However, her husband and other neighbours saved her.
06] It is further stated that when the torture and harassment became unbearable, on 29.03.2016, she made a complaint to the Education Officer (Primary) and the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The Chief Executive Officer referred the matter to the Women Grievance Redressal Committee, Chandrapur. The Committee submitted its report on 20.03.2017 and observed that the accused had indulged in a serious offence.
07] The informant therefore, on 25.04.2017, lodged a report at Police Station, Bramhapuri. On the basis of this report, a crime bearing No. 371/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 354- A(1)&(2) of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered.
08] The Investigating Officer conducted necessary investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Similarly, the supplementary statement of the informant was recorded. In the said statement recorded on 26.04.2017, the informant has stated that the second incident had occurred on 05.08.2015 and not on 04.08.2015. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bramhapuri.
09] The accused made an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. The prosecution opposed this application. In the application, the accused has stated that the case filed against him was false and frivolous. There was inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. There was no explanation for the delay.
