Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the notice dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure -6) issued under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 29 of 2015, under Sections 376(C)/511, 354, 354(A), 354b and 506 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been informed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case and explain his defence.
(2.) AT the instance of the informant Sonali Tripathi, the aforesaid case was instituted with the allegation that the informant is presently pursuing her Bachelors Course in Radiation and Imaging Technology, 2nd Year, NIMS University, Jaipur and resides in the college Hostel. On 25.10.2014, the Chancellor of her college Balvir Singh Tomar - the petitioner visited Ranchi and stayed in a Hotel. Since she was also in Ranchi, the petitioner invited her and her father in hotel in a programme in connection with opening of a news channel. After conclusion of the said programme at about 8.00 p.m., the petitioner called her and informed that he wants to send her to Europe under students exchange programme and requested her to stay. Whereafter, her father went away to some other place. The petitioner called her in his room and repeated the same statement to send her to Europe in order to make her career and sat near her and using force upon her tried to open her clothes. The informant raised objection then he left her. Since the petitioner was aged about 70 years, she could not understand his bad intention. Thereafter, she was subjected to indecent behaviour by the petitioner on several occasion in his chamber on the same ground of being sent her to Europe. On 01.02.2015 at 6:30 a.m., she received a message on her 'WhatsApp' and also received a call of petitioner on 04.02.2015 and talked her about 47 minutes. In the said conversation, he used words of dual meaning by saying that she should become his intimate and confidential and tried to impress upon her to fulfill his physical needs. She recorded the entire conversation in her mobile. Even in past, the petitioner had sexually exploited several girls for which 2 -3 F.I.Rs. had been lodged but being influential and money powered man, he is still roaming free. She conveyed the entire incidence to her father, who directed her to immediately come to Ranchi. She came back to Ranchi on 05.02.2015 and lodged the present first information report. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner before filing of this writ application had filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions court and after rejection of prayer, filed A.B.A. No. 1030 of 2015 before this Court. After the order of rejection by this Court, he preferred S.L.P.(Cr.) No. 4075 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2015. Since, non -bailable warrant was issued against him, he preferred one Criminal Revision No. 287 of 2015 before this Court with a prayer to quash the warrant of arrest and the processes issued under Section 82 of the Code. The said revision application was allowed vide order dated 26.03.2015 and the warrant of arrest was set aside. The petitioner had also preferred W.P.(Cr.) No. 75 of 2015 in this Court challenging the very institution of the first information report but during argument, his counsel prayed for withdrawal of the said writ, which was accorded by order dated 19.06.2015. One another Writ Application bearing W.P.(Cr.) No. 247 of 2015 has also been filed for quashing the first information report in connection with present Chutia P.S. Case No. 29 of 2015.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha after taking the Court through the allegations in the first information report and all other relevant materials, seriously contended that the registration of the crime was with malafide intention to harass this petitioner and it is in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as on the face of the allegations made in the F.I.R., no case is made out against the petitioner. It was also submitted that without complying the mandates given by Hon'ble Supreme Court to issue notice under Section 41(A) of the Code, warrant of arrest was earlier issued against the petitioner, which was subsequently set aside and that even though the warrant of arrest was set aside, the I.O. of the case with malafide intention had sent a notice showing issuance of non -bailable warrant to Security Incharge, Delhi Airport while this petitioner was going abroad as a member with the team of the President of India. Learned senior counsel further relying upon the mandates given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Ramdeo Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat;, 2015(2) JBCJ 518 (SC) submitted that before taking any step for arresting or before issuing a notice under Section 41 -A of the Code, preliminary enquiry is to be conducted when there is a delay of more than three months in initiating criminal prosecution. It was also submitted that a notice under Section 41(A) of the Code (Annexure -6) has now been issued but the same is only an eye wash and it has been issued in a mechanical manner and that a representative of the petitioner had already appeared before the Investigating Officer and had submitted the gist of defence but the Investigating Officer wants the appearance of this petitioner before him with intention to arrest this petitioner, which would be evident from the act of the Investigating Officer that during pendency of this writ application, warrant of arrest has been issued against this petitioner, which has been brought on record by filing an interlocutory application. Hence, the prayer is to quash the notice issued under Section 41(A) of the Code as contained in Annexure -6 of this writ application.;