IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT rd ON THE 23 OF APRIL, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16560 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SANJAY TIWARI S/O SHRI BRIJKISHOR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. EMPLOYEE R/O VILLAGE KHARON TEHSIL LIDHORA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI SHREYASH PANDIT - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH).

2. VICTIM A S/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTIONN (MADHYA PRADESH).

.....RESPONDENT (SHRI NARENDRA CHOURASIA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE AND SHRI ABHILASH KUMAR DEY -

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CRPC for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana Chhatarpur in connection with Crime No.03/2023 for having committed offences under section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

2. Complainant/victim-A filed a complaint on 14.02.2023 at Police Station-Mahila Thana Chhatarpur. It is stated by her that she is a reporter and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR used to visit Chhatarpur in relation to her work. During visit, she developed friendship with Constable-Sanjay Tiwari. Petitioner on 23.04.2021 is said to have taken prosecutrix to Panchawati Restaurant and mixed something in her drinks. Petitioner is said to have taken indecent photographs of prosecutrix and told that he established physical relationship with her, when she was unconscious. She was threatened that if incident is disclosed to any other person, he will make her photographs viral. He again called her to Khajuraho on 10.12.2022 and established physical relationship with victim in a hotel at Khajuraho. On January, 2023, petitioner gave information to aunt and brother (Mangal Pandey) of victim and also threatened to make photographs viral. Due to shame and threats, she did not report the matter. She gathered courage and finally reported the incident on 14.02.2023. On reporting the matter, FIR was registered under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

3. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was not present with prosecutrix on date of incident. Petitioner is a Government Servant and was on duty, which is evident from Rajnamchasanah dated 10.12.2022. It is submitted that earlier, victim has lodged report on 15.03.2021 at Police Station- Kotwali District –Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) against one Suraj Prasad Pandey. After registration of FIR, Khatma was filed in said matter. Complainant had given false complaint in Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra against Suraj Prasad Pandey alleging her to be his wife. Complaint was found to be false. Similar false report has been lodged against petitioner also without any basis. Complainant is in habit of lodging false report and roping innocent persons and blackmailing them. Continuation of proceedings against petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and, therefore, FIR registered against petitioner may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR quashed.

4. Government advocate appearing for State supported the prosecution version and submitted that FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint made by prosecutrix. Her statement was recorded and she was also examined. From FIR, statement, and evidence available on record, prima facie, offence appears to be made out against petitioner. In view of same FIR registered against petitioner may not be quashed.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. During investigation, after recording of FIR, seizure memo, medical examination of prosecutrix, statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses namely brother Mangal Pandey, mother Asha and one Nisha Shukla was recorded. Petitioner was arrested on 30.04.2023. In 164 statement recorded by police, prosecutrix stated that she was aborted in Rajput Nursing Home. On said information, supplementary statement was recorded, in