- (1.) This is a unique and a very peculiar case where a helpless victim of circumstances, moreso created by a ridiculous order passed by no less a person than an Additional Sessions Judge, has to approach this Court for the redressel of his grievances.
(2.) It appears that some lady by the name of Rasmuni Manjhian might be having some friendly or other relationship with the petitioner. Both had been working in the CCL at the relevant time. The lady admittedly is the mother of the informant. She is stated to be more than 40 years of age. It is nobody's case that she is under 18 years of age, or that she was below 18 years of age as on the alleged date and time of occurrence of any alleged incident. In fact, interestingly, no incident as such is even alleged to have occurred in this case. Whether the lady and the petitioner at the relevant time had been having friendly relationship or were having some type of an illicit relationship is of no consequence as far as this case is concerned. I am saying so because a bare perusal of the First Information Report lodged by the informant, who is the son of the aforesaid Lady, primarily suggests two things, clearly, glaringly and very very categorically; firstly that the lady and the petitioner might have been moving at the relevant time from one place to another, of course with the consent of each other, and secondly that there has been no allegation whatsoever by any one that the petitioner had any sexual intercourse with the lady against her will or without her consent. In fact, a reading of the First Information Report suggests that there is not even any allegation at all that the petitioner had any sexual intercourse at all with the lady.
(3.) It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that the lady ultimately herself came on scene. What is the version of the lady? Did any statement of the lady, recorded by the police under S. 161, Cr. P.C. reveal anything? Answer seems to be that neither the police recorded any version of the lady under S. 161, Cr. P.C. nor did the police take any steps in recording her statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. Obvious inference is that neither the lady was kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner, nor had ever she been taken illegally by the petitioner from one place to another, with or without her consent or will. As far as the kidnapping is concerned, it is totally and strictly ruled out in this case because the lady admittedly was of more than 18 years of age. She is stated to be above 40 years old. She is an old mother of the informant.;