Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in revision affirming the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur accepting the Final Report No. 65/2006 filed after investigation of the F.I.R. No. 194/2006 of the P.S. Amba Mata, Distt. Udaipur. The police after investigation of the F.I.R. filed by the petitioner submitted a final report which was accepted by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the learned ACJM. Now, the petitioner complainant has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition seeking a direction that the respondent No. 1 should be prosecuted for the offences in relation whereof the F.I.R. had been filed.
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of ACJM No: 2, Udaipur on 20.3.2006. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Amba Mata, Udaipur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon F.I.R. No. 194/2006 was registered and the police after thorough investigation of the matter filed a final report in the Court being F.R. No. 65/2006. The allegation as levelled by the petitioner complainant in the complaint was that her husband had expired in the year 1996. Thereafter in order to make ends meet, she started working in the Hansraj Finance and Consultants Section 12, Savina, Udaipur. She further alleged that the accused used to frequently visit the Finance Company as he had invested some money in the company. The complainant alleged that she became familiar with the respondent No. 1 because of his regular visits to the Finance Company, She also alleged that the respondent No. 1 who was a retired police officer showing sympathy towards the complainant's poor condition, advanced a sum of L 50,000/- on 24.3.2000 as loan for redemption of her mortgaged house and as a security took into his possession, the complainant's F.D.R. worth L 80,000/-.
(3.) The complainant further alleged that she returned most of the loan amount to the respondent by making payment of small instalments from time to time and only a sum of 6,000/- remained due. However, the accused did not return back her F.D.R. The accused hatched a sinister plan and called her to his house on 6.4.2005 under the pretext of returning the F.D.R. The complainant informed this fact to Mumtaz and reached at Savina Fatak at 11 Oclock. The accused took her to his house at Amba Mata. Nobody else was present in the house. The accused offered her water to drink and as soon as she consumed the same she became unconscious. After she became unconscious, the accused committed.rape upon her. When she regained senses about 20-30 minutes later, she saw' that her clothes were in a dishevel ed state. She confronted the accused and asked him as to why she had been ravished, on this the accused told her that he had recorded a video film of the act and that she would have to come to the accused as and when called. The accused once again committed rape upon her in April.;