- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. This criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR of case crime No. 84 of 2011, under Section 452, 323, 354 and 506 IPC, Police Station Phugana, district Muzaffarnagar, which was lodged against the petitioner Amit Kumar alias Mittal on 23.4.2011 at 9.30 p.m. by the victim, respondent no.4.
(2.) BRIEFLY the allegations in the FIR were that on 23.4.2011 at 4.00 p.m., the victim was all alone in her house. All of a sudden, the petitioner Amit Kumar alias Mittal entered the house and when she asked Amit why he had entered her house, he whipped out a country made pistol with a long barrel which he placed on her temple and tried to force her to comply to his wishes. Then he tried to outrage her modesty. The victim told him that he could take her life but she would not do his bidding. Then on gun point the petitioner used criminal force to outrage her modesty. Inspite of her cries the petitioner began to molset her by applying his mouth and teeth to her body. On her further alarm, Chainpal, Maheshvir, Jagbir and other neighbours arrived there and saved the victim from being raped. The victim was taken for medical examination by Head Constable Vinod Kumar to C.H.C. Kandhala, Muzaffarnagar, where she was medically examined by Dr. Ved Murti on the same night, i.e on 23.4.2011 at 10.35 p.m. The Doctor found the following injuries on her person: 1.Red contusion size 3 cm x 2 cm on right side of forehead just above the right eye brow. 2.Multiple abrasion on left side upper part of chest, size of largest one is 2 cm x 1 cm and size of smallest one is 1 cm x 7 cm, oozing of blood present. 3.A linear abrasion 3 cm in length on posterior lateral aspect of upper part of left forearm, oozing of blood present. 4.A linear abrasion 1 cm in length on antero lateral aspect of upper part of left forearm . Red colour present. 5.A red contusion size 6 cm x 1 cm on left scapular region obliquely placed. 6.A red contusion size 7 cm x 1 cm on left side of back obliquely placed. The injuries were fresh and simple in nature and were caused by some blunt hard object or by friction. The defence of the petitioner was that he was the next door neighbour of the informant-respondent. The husband of the informant had taken a loan of Rs. 16,000/ from the petitioner with an assurance that he would repay the same within a period of fifteen days. When the husband of the informant defaulted the petitioner demanded the same. The husband of the informant called the petitioner to the village tank on 23.4.2011 at 2.30 P.M where he along with his associates assaulted the petitioner. The petitioner even got himself medically examined at C.H.C. Shamli, Muzaffarnagar on 25.4.2011 at 6.25 P.M. The medical report showed that the petitioner was brought by self for his medical examination. The doctor noted a lacerated wound size .8 x .4 cm x scalp deep on left side of skull 8 cm above to left ear and there were other contusions, abraded swelling and complaints of pain on elbow joint, wrist joint, and abdomen.The injuries were simple and their duration was within 1 to 2 days.
(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a private student of B.A.-III and his final examinations were to be concluded on 14.5.2011. IT was further submitted that the offences other than those under Sections 452 and 506 IPC for which the petitioner had been challaned (i.e. those under sections 354 and 323 IPC), were bailable in nature. Significantly, no FIR was lodged from the side of the petitioner, and even in his application to the S.S.P, Muzaffarnagar dated 28.4.2011 giving out his version that he was called to the water tank in the village on 23.4.11 at 2.30 p.m. and assaulted on his demand for return of the Rs. 16000 owed by the informant's husband to him, his explanation for the delayed filing of the application was that there were talks of compromise between the parties, but it was claimed that in the meantime the husband of the informant had quietly got a fake medical examination of the informant done, and lodged a false report. Talk of compromise does not appear to be a reasonable explanation for the delayed medical examination of the petitioner on 25.4.2011 when he had allegedly received the injuries on 23.4.2011 or his belated application to the SSP on 28.4.2011 (if indeed any such application has been filed), especially as the informant had been medically examined and the report lodged on the same day itself, i.e. on 23.4.2011, which fact establishes the genuiness of the informant's case and a refutation of the petitioner's contention that the informant's injuries or report were concocted.;