1. By filing instant petition under Art.14, Art.19, Art.21, Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India as well as under S.528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS, 2023" for short), the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Anand and thereby direct the District Superintendent of Police, Anand to hold further investigation in connection with the FIR lodged by her.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Ramnanadan Singh for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr. Jay Thakkar for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is the complainant of an FIR being C.R. No.11215037220493/2022 registered with Vidyanagar Police Station, Anand for the offences under S.376(2)(n), S.376(2)(e), S.376(C)(d) and S.323 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.2 herein and pursuant to registration of the said FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer has carried out investigation and submitted chargesheet before the learned Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it has been registered as Sessions Case No.15/2023 and is pending for trial.

4. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, it is the duty of the concerned Investigating Officer to make intensive search upon the facts of the matter and to collect maximum evidence against the guilty person but admittedly, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had gone to the hospital of the respondent No.2 for getting treatment and at that relevant point of time, she was made unconscious by applying injection of anesthesia and, thereafter, she was unroped and her nude photos and videos were taken by the respondent No.2 and, thereafter under the guise of circulating the said articles in the social media, she was compelled to succumb to his ill - will and on number of occasions, the applicant was exploited by the respondent No.2, therefore at the time of registration of the FIR, there is specific mention about the doctor, who had given anesthesia to her, however during the course of investigation, he was not interrogated nor his statement was recorded.

5. Learned advocate submitted that it is the specific case of the applicant that on number of occasions, the applicant was compelled to go along with the respondent No.2 in the Royal Square Hotel, therefore, CCTV footages and the register of the said hotel were required to be collected. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the bills of the said hotels were paid by the petitioner as she was directed to pay certain amount in the account of the respondent No.2 and part of said payment was also made by the petitioner in the account of one of the employees of the respondent No.2 and the said fact is clearly mentioned in the operative part of the FIR, but despite the said fact, the concerned Investigating Officer has not collected those set of evidence.

6. Learned advocate submitted that it is the specific case of the petitioner that particular photographs have been captured in the mobile of the respondent No.2 and the said fact is also mentioned in the FIR but reason best known to the concerned IO, the mobile of the respondent No.2 had not been seized though the said fact was well within the knowledge of the concerned Investigating Officer, which clearly goes on to show that there is lacuna in the investigation. Learned advocate further submitted that not only that, the petitioner had submitted written application before the Home Minister as well as other highest authority to keep watch upon the movement of the investigation, otherwise, there are all possible chances that under the influence of the respondent No.2, the investigation would not be carried out in proper manner and ultimately, the investigation was carried out in perfunctory manner. Learned advocate furthe