- (1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.2,2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Prabatsar in revision whereby, the learned revisional Court upheld the order dated 25.1.2012 passed by the learned ACJM, Makrana in Cr. Original Case No. 46/12 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376, 323, and 379 of the IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'prosecutrix') aged 47 years at the relevant time, submitted a complaint in the court of the learned ACJM, Makrana on 20.4.2011. It was alleged in the complaint that after the death of the prosecutrix's husband, she took a house on rent near the Shiv Temple at the village Boravar. It was alleged that the accused knew the prosecutrix from before and thus, 7 to 8 years prior to filing of the complaint, he approached the prosecutrix and took her into his confidence. He lured her with a promise that he would marry her and started to exploit her sexually under this assurance. The prosecutrix further alleged that she conceived due to the illicit sexual relations established by the accused with her. The accused managed to have the child aborted by administering some medicine to her. Thereafter also, the accused continued the sexual exploitation of the prosecutrix against her wishes. The prosecutrix alleged that she used to do labour jobs for earning her livelihood and got some ornaments prepared from her own savings. It was alleged that on 25.12.2010 the accused came into her residential premises, assaulted her and carried away her ornaments forcibly. It was also alleged that the accused married the prosecutrix and thereafter, left her alone at the village Boravar and went back to his village Dabariya. She further alleged that the accused refused to keep her with him in the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that the accused forcibly entered the house, of the prosecutrix on 2.4.2011 in the night at about 11.30 PM and committed forcible rape upon her resistance. The prosecutrix went to the Police Station for reporting the matter but the Police officers did not accept the report. On this, the prosecutrix was forced to approach the Court for filing the complaint. The complaint thus submitted by the prosecutrix was forwarded to the Police for investigation under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. The investigation agency thoroughly investigated the matter and arrived at the following conclusions: (1) That the house where the incident allegedly occurred belonged to one Shami Mohd.. (2) The accused petitioner had taken the house on rent and the prosecutrix lived with the petitioner in the house as his mistress. (3) Numerous witnesses examined during the investigation and stated that the prosecutrix was living consensually with the petitioner for the, last numerous years. (4) The Witnesses Ehsan and Rafiq, who were also co-tenants in the same premises were examined u/Sec. 161 Cr. P.C. and these witnesses did not corroborate the allegations levelled by the complainant. (5) That the accused and the complainant stayed together in a live-in relationship and that the accused got the ornaments prepared for the prosecutrix. (6) The brother of the accused expired about two years prior to the incident whereupon the accused went back to his village and started living with his sister-in-law Bhanwari. The prosecutrix became enraged due to this and filed the false report with the intention of teaching a lesson to the accused and for extorting money. (7) The FIR filed by the prosecutrix was patently false.
(2.) The notice of the Final Report was given to the prosecutrix, who filed a protest petition against the same and examined herself and Harkaran and Hanumana Ram under Section 200/202 Cr. P.C.
(3.) The learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the protest petition and took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 323 and 379 of the IPC. Being aggrieved of the order dated 25.1.2012, the petitioner preferred a revision which too, has been rejected as stated above. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against him.;