- (1.) IMTIYAZ Murtaza, Amar Saran
(2.) -Heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R and staying the arrest of the petitioner Km. Shagufta in Case Crime No. 1398 of 2006, under Sections 363/366/376/ 452/506/406/368, I.P.C., police station Kotwali City, district Bijnor. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner who is not named in the F.I.R., and that the version of the prosecution has changed in the Section 161, Cr. P.C. and thereafter in Section 164, Cr. P.C. statement of the prosecutrix.
(3.) IT may be noted that in the present case it could not be said that the F.I.R. does not disclose any cognizable offence against any accused person. Furthermore no meticulous examination of the evidence and material on record is required at this stage in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the Court is not to embark on an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as quashing of an F.I.R. is an exception and a rarity and not ordinarily to be resorted to. Moreover, in her under Section 164, Cr. P.C. statement recorded by the Magistrate, the prosecutrix has stated that the petitioner was instrumental in her enticement and abduction, which eventually resulted in her gang rape by the co-accused Kafeel and Faheem. The initial F.I.R. or earlier Section 161, Cr. P.C. statement may not have contained all the details including allegations of gang rape or complicity of the petitioner because it is often humiliating for the family or the victim to make such disclosures or because extraneous pressures may have been bought to bear on the investigating agency. At any rate whether the version given by the prosecution is substantially true or contains unwarranted improvements are matters for appreciation by the investigating agency or the bail or trial court, and provide no ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution or for staying the arrest. There is no substance also in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution of the petitioner was mala fide as there was no reason for the victim to have implicated the petitioner, who was a girl unless she was involved in this offence or for holding that the proceedings was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite her due to private and personal grudge.;