HARI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the FIR dated 19.06.2013 registered as case crime No. 191 of 2013 under Section 376, 504, 506, 120 -B I.P.C. and under Section 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, police station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun.
(2.) AS per the contents of the FIR, prosecutrix/respondent No. 3 belongs to Scheduled Tribe; Shobhit Gupta, son of petitioner No. 1, took the prosecutrix in the room, situated on the first floor of his shop about two months before the registration of the FIR and committed rape upon her; when the prosecutrix started weeping, she was assured by Shobhit that nothing to be worried about and he would marry with her, thereafter, on several occasions, Shobhit took the prosecutrix in his room and made sexual relations with her, on the pretext that he would marry with her; petitioners were having full knowledge about the commission of rape and physical relations being made by Shobhit with the prosecutrix; not only this, petitioner No. 1 (father of Shobhit) and petitioner No. 2 (elder uncle of Shobhit), instigated him to commit rape on her; on the date of registration of the FIR, Shobhit again pressurized the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him whereupon prosecutrix told Shobhit that first of all, they should marry and then she would permit him to have sexual relation with her; on this, Shobhit told the prosecutrix that neither he nor anybody else would marry with her, since she was Scheduled Tribe; thereafter, prosecutrix went to the shop of father of Shobhit (petitioner No. 1) to complain, he also supported Shobhit and asked the prosecutrix to leave his shop immediately, meanwhile, petitioner No. 2 came and he also extended threats to her and told her that if she would not leave the shop, she would be killed. The only allegation against the present petitioners is that both of them were having knowledge regarding sexual relations between Shobhit and prosecutrix and when prosecutrix made complaint to the petitioners, they threatened her to leave their shop, otherwise, she would be killed. The contents of the FIR that petitioners instigated Shobhit to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, on the face of it, considering the Indian Society, seems to be totally concocted and incorrect.
(3.) PRIMA facie, involvement of petitioners in the present case, seems to be highly doubtful, however, considering the gravity of the offences, this is not a fit case where FIR should be quashed, at this stage.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.