Judgment:
M.Cr.C.No.9896/2010 12.2.2013 Shri S.C.Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Nishant Datt for the petitioner.
Shri Sameer Chile, PL for the State.
Arguments heard.
Earlier registered as Criminal Revision No.1255/2001 and it was ordered to be converted into the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2010.
The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for quashing and setting aside the order of framing of charge dated 1.12.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T.No.62/2001 pending in the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of framing the charge on the ground that the DNA test was conducted by the prosecution agency and report of which has been filed along with the chalan.
The DNA report shows that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child of prosecutrix Raghuvanti Bai.
Learned Sr.Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the report (Annexures 3 and
4) submitted by the President, M.P.Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Aayog after taking the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses, according to which the allegation of commission of rape or sexual intercouRs.resulting into pregnancy of complainant, has been found false.
The complainant has alleged in her complaint that the petitioner has committed rape on her several times resulting in her pregnancy but she has not been able to mention the name of the Forest Officer responsible for pregnancy.
She only uttered the name “Ranger Sahab”.It has also been found that ealier also she became pregnant twice under suspicious circumstances and she tried to settle the dispute for amount of Rs.One Lac, which has not paid, therefore, she falsely implicated the petitioner.
The allegation of complainant is that the boy was born due to commission of rape by the petitioner only and as per the DNA report the petitioner is not the biological father of son of the prosecutrix, which shows that the prosecutrix was having bodily relations with some other person.
The case of the petitioner falls under circumstances Nos.1, 5 and 7 laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal – 1992 AIR SCW 237.
The relevant circumstances are reproduced below :- In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art.
226 or under S.
482 of the Cr.P.C.may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
However, power should be exercises sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
1) Where the allegations made in the FiRs.Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2)............................3)...........................4)...........................5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6)..........................7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fiide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Considering the DNA report, no offence under Section 376 of the IPC or Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioner.
Even if the report of the President, M.P.Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Aayog is not taken into consideration, the DNA report itself is sufficient to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Thus, in my opinion, the learned trial Court is not justified in framing the charge under Section 376 of the IPC or under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Resultantly, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order is hereby set aside.
The petitioner is discharged from the charges under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action.
(Anil Sharma) Judge PB