SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the accused petitioners Yuvraj and Maghraj being aggrieved of the order dated 15.5.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jodhpur in connection with F.I.R. No.105/2015 P.S. Mathaniya whereby the learned trial court proceeded to reject the negative F.R. No.198/2016 and took cognizance for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N) I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act against the petitioner Yuvraj and Section 376/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(C)/4 of POCSO Act against the petitioner Maghraj and directed that they be summoned through warrant of arrest.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the complainant victim Mst.L aged 17 years lodged a written report at the Police Station Mathaniya on 8.7.2015 alleging that about three months ago i.e. in the month of April, she had gone to the mobile repair shop of the petitioner Yuvraj at village Tinwari for getting her mobile repaired. Yuvraj told her that the repairing process would take some time and asked her to wait at the shop. He sent for a bottle of Pepsi and two empty glasses, went inside the shop and brought back the glasses filled with Pepsi and offered one to the complainant. The complainant felt drowsy after drinking the cold drink. Taking advantage of her drowsiness, the accused caught hold her hand and took her inside the shop. She regained senses about two hours later upon which Yuvraj told that he had indulged in sexual intercourse with her and had also prepared a video clip of the compromising moments in his mobile. She was threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, the video clip would be circulated and she would be maligned in the society. He further told the victim that he had prepared numerous indecent video clips of other girls and till date, nobody had been able to take action against him. Mst.L got terrified because of the threats given by the accused and thus, did not disclose about the incident to anybody. She requested the accused to delete the video clip but he refused to do so and sent her back after repairing her mobile. There was only one mobile phone in her family and the accused used to call on that mobile number from various phones and talked only if the prosecutrix took the call. She was repeatedly called by the accused to his shop and upon resistence being shown, she was threatened that the video clip would be made viral. In this manner, the accused blackmailed and called the prosecutrix to his shop and exploited her sexually on no less than 3-4 occasions behind the partition of his shop. Numerous threatening messages were also sent by the accused on the mobile number of her father. About 7-8 days before lodging of the report, the accused Yuvraj once again called her to his shop where she saw Maghraj sitting there from before. Yuvraj told the prosecutrix that she should go with Maghraj and do as he desired. She was forcibly sent behind the shop with Maghraj. She pleaded with Maghraj that he was a fatherly figure for her and should not indulge in the vile act. Maghraj didn't listen to her pleas and told her that he was also having her video clip. He lay down and opened his own clothes and tried to disrobe the prosecutrix, who started shouting on which Maghraj became apprehensive and went away. She was continuously given threats by both the accused to bow down to their illicit deands or face the consequence of the video clip being circulated in the village. She claimed that she became highly tensed up because of these threats and finally mustered the courage and told her parents of these incidents. Her father convened a village meeting and called Maghraj who threatened that he would exploit the girl and would circulate the video clip.
(3.) On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No.105/2015 was lodged at the P.S. Mathaniya and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer conducted detailed investigation and filed a negative Final Report finding the entire story of the victim to be concocted and cooked up. Notice of the Final Report was given to the prosecutrix, who appeared in the court and submitted a protest petition. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 whereafter, the trial court proceeded to take cognizance against the accused persons in the above terms by the impugned order dated 15.5.2017 and summoned them through warrant of arrest. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant revision in order to assail the order taking cognizance.;