Amar Saran and R.N. Misra, JJ. - (1.) WE have heard Shri S.P.S. Raghav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR dated 9.2.2009 lodged by respondent No. 3 Pramod Kumar on crime No. 18 of 2009, under sections 376(2A-1), 504 and 506 IPC, police station Fariha, district Fkozabad. He has also prayed the stay of arrest by the I.O. It appears form the record that on 6.2.2009 Km. Shrimati, sister of complain ant-informant was taken away by force from the way of Tehsil Jasrana by Shilesh Kumar and Tinkoo and gang rape was committed by them upon her, for which the FIR was lodged and a case under sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC was registered by Fariha police on crime No. 17 of 2009. When she went to the police station con cerned for making complaint on 7.2.2009 the petitioner being the SHO of police sta tion Fariah took the lady to his residence and by bolting the door and windows from inside, he himself committed rape upon her. The matter was reported to the police on 9.2.2009 and this case was registered. The I.O. has interrogated the prosecutrix under section 161 Cr.P.C. We have perused the case diary, where she supported the entire prosecution version. We have also perused the case diary of crime No. 17 of 2009. In that case also the proseuctrix was examined by Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.2.2009, where also the prose cutrix supported the entire prosecution version implicating the petitioner for rape. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised mainly two points, one regarding delay in FIR, another regarding mode of rape assigned in the FIR. He has contended that when the brother of another witness were already present in the compound of the police station and peeping through the window of the room where rape was committed by the petitioner, how could it be believed that the police officer can commit rape upon a woman in the pres ence of so many persons. He has further contended that according to the FIR the report was lodged to the police after two days and no plausible explanation was given. But the case diary was otherwise. The I.O. has interrogated the complainant informant, who has stated that after the incident he went to the higher authorities and brought the matter to the notice and after that he reported the matter to the police. In such cases normally some delay 1 is caused in reporting the matter to the po lice, because the future of the unmarried girl remains on stake. The prosecutrix has clarified in her statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. referred to above that when the petitioner bolted her in the room he was thinking that no one was there be cause he had already ousted her family members from the room. These are the facts which require evidence and in the writ petition under Article 226 of the consti tution of India, the evidence cannot be taken to prove the defence version. This version of the petitioner as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can also not be decided at this stage that he has refused to give contribution on the birthday of the Chief Minister of the State and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case by Bahujan Samjwadi Party workers. The FIR, statement of the prosecu trix and the witnesses reveal a cognizable offence and there is no material on the rec ord to quash the FIR. Therefore, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;