Misuse of 376 RPC
JAMMU: In a complaint filed by a lady regarding registration of FIR U/s 376 RPC, CJM Reasi Amarjeet Singh Langeh while dismissing the application, directed SHO Police Station, Pouni to proceed in accordance with relevant provisions of law against complainant in face of material referred to by her in the report that she submitted herein, on account of which allegations in the complaint have been falsified.
The complainant sought initiation of action against accused essentially by registration of FIR on account of allegations that she and accused No. 1 to 3 are neighbours at Barakh Tehsil Pouni; that two months back one Rakhi (accused No. 3 herein) W/o Parshotam Singh called her at her house around 07:30 PM in the evening in connection with some urgent work; that no sooner did she reach the house of accused No. 3, accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 who were already present there – caught hold of her by blocking her mouth and took her to Barakh Kandha wherefrom she was taken to Rajouri in a vehicle wherefrom accused No. 4 came back to Barakh on the other day while as accused No. 1 (Angrez Singh) kept her in a rented accommodation and subjected her to repeated rape and also hurled threats to her and her father that should an FIR be registered, he would do away with their lives; and somehow subsequently she managed to escape from clutches of accused (Angrez Singh) and contacted her father on telephone, who came to her on 01.09.2019; that her father by that time had already reported the matter to police.
This complaint was presented here on 13.09.2019 and it was returned with the remark that she (complainant) should first approach police station concerned. When she approached police station concerned, SHO Police Station Pouni submitted a detailed report which was presented today by Ld. Sr. Prosecuting Officer.
Court observed that the report submitted by SHO Police Station Pouni upon verification of allegations of complainant it came to fore that an FIR bearing No. 57/2019 stood registered with Police Station Kandi, District Rajouri for offences under sections 452, 376, 382, 295-A and 201 of RPC at the instance of complainant against one Mohd Anwar. Further, according to police report, in order to get aforesaid FIR registered – complainant went to Police Station Kandi along with her husband namely Angrez Singh who has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in the complaint at hand. Further, certified copy of statement of complainant recorded under section 164-A of Cr. PC by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kotranka on 12.07.2019 (which has been submitted along with report by SHO Police Station Pouni) – would also show that complainant has disclosed in her particulars, Angrez Singh (accused No. 1 herein) as her husband with whom she did put up in a rented accommodation at Bakodi Bazar in District Rajouri where she was allegedly subjected to rape by one Mohd Anwar in connection with which aforementioned FIR was registered with Police Station Kandi. According to SHO, instant complaint upon verification has been found to be frivolous, false and untrue in light of aforementioned FIR registered at the instance of complainant and her subsequent statement under section 164-A of Cr. PC.
Court after perusal of the report filed by the police observed that bare perusal of FIR No. 57/2019 for offences under sections 452, 376, 382, 295-A and 201 of RPC registered with Police Station Kandi District Rajouri, the photo copy of which is annexed with police report – would explicitly show that the same was registered at the instance of complainant herein where she not only represented accused No. 1 (Angrez Singh) as her husband but said Angrez Singh also accompanied her in that capacity to police station supra. Further, statement of complainant under section 164-A of Cr. PC recorded by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kotranka in aforesaid FIR depicts that complainant claimed accused Angrez Singh herein as her husband. In the complaint at hand, complainant however does not even whisper that accused Angrez Singh is her husband. Interestingly also, statement of complainant under section 164-A of Cr. PC was recorded around the time when occurrence as alleged in the complaint at hand is said to have taken place. In her statement under section 164-A of Cr. PC, complainant did not allude any act of abduction or sexual assault to accused herein, in particular to accused No. 1 (Angrez Singh). She instead represented that accused Angrez Singh is her husband. On facts therefore, instant complaint is a revealing illustration of a brazen attempt to not only misuse penal law on the subject but also its process and machinery. If a complaint like one at hand is entertained by putting criminal law machinery (investigation) into motion, such course would be a sure recipe for likes of complainant who has prima facie demonstrated a penchant propensity to resort to purely blackmailing tactics by making untrue and false allegations with a view to misuse process of law. Complainant indeed seems to have misleadingly portrayed herself to be a victim and this tendency needs to be hauled up by invoking relevant provisions of penal law by investigating agency.
With these observations CJM Reasi Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed that no case for putting criminal law into motion on the set of allegations set out in the complaint is made out. Prayer of complainant which is essentially in the nature of launching criminal investigation against accused is therefore declined.
Misuse of 376 RPC