HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
M.Cr.C. No.1359 of 2004
Munku Ram Sarthi, Raipur (C.G.)
.....Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh.
2. Station House Officer, Jashpur (CG).
3. Smt. Lily Kujur, P.O. Gholeng, Jashpur (CG).
......Respondents
! Shri P.Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri
P.S.Koshy, Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Shri Vinod
Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner.
^ Shri Pramod Verma, Additional Advocate General
with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Agrawal, Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Panel Lawyers for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the respondent
No.3.
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Dated: 11/02/2005
: O R D E R
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting
aside the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Kotwali,
Jashpur on 6-5-2004, the investigation and the
proceedings pending in Crime No.113/2004 on the basis
of the said F.I.R. For deciding this petition, the
facts in brief compass are that, the petitioner is an
I.A.S. Officer, who was posted as Collector, Jashpur
from 4-12-2000 to 2-1-2003. The respondent No.3, Smt.
Lily Kujur, during that period, was posted as
Supervisor in the Woman and Child Welfare Department
and the said Department was under control of the
Collector, Jashpur. Smt. Lily Kujur sent a complaint
to various higher authorities including Police
specifically alleging that the petitioner, who was the
Collector, Jashpur, very often called her to his
bungalow, and instead of official work, on such
pretext, used to talk about her personal life. On 16-
10-2001, she was called by the petitioner. She refused
to go, then a message was given to her through her
colleague Supervisor Smt. Sushma Shahi that, the
Collector, Jashpur has called her for official work.
Therefore, she visited the Collector’s bungalow, where
the petitioner gave her various threats, and putting
her in fear, committed rape on her and thereafter
continued the physical relation till 24-6-2002. When
Smt. Lily Kujur, on 24-6-2002, finally refused to
surrender herself for intercourse and threatened him to
report the matter to Chief Minister, she was suspended
from her duty on 26-6-2002 by the petitioner.
2. The State Government, on receiving the
complaint of Smt. Lily Kujur, to know the correctness
of her allegations, requested Chhattisgarh Minority
Commission to make necessary enquiry and submit its
report. The Chhattisgarh Minority Commission, headed
by Shri Ranjan Dayal, after due enquiry, taking
statement of various witnesses and considering various
records, found the allegations leveled by Smt. Lily
Kujur to be false and accordingly submitted its report.
In the capacity of Collector, Jashpur, the petitioner
passed some orders canceling the revenue patta issued
in favour of family members of Shri Nand Kumar Sai, the
Opposition Leader in Vidhan Sabha and also took steps
to declare her daughter disqualified to continue as
Janpad Panchayat Member. As a result thereof, Shri
Nand Kumar Sai started raising the issue of Smt. Lily
Kujur, therefore, again the matter was referred to
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur for enquiry.
The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Shri
Narayan Singh, in his enquiry, examined a number of
witnesses and considered various documents, T.A. Bills
encashed by Smt. Lily Kujur and her colleague, log book
maintained by the driver of the petitioner and other
documents. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division,
Bilaspur was not only referred to enquire into the
allegations made by Smt. Lily Kujur but also a number
of complaints made against the petitioner were referred
to him for enquiry. As regards the allegations made by
Smt. Lily Kujur, although no specific clear finding has
been given by the Commissioner in his report, impliedly
the said report suggests that the complaint made by
Smt. Lily Kujur was not tallying with the factual
matrix and available documents or to say the complaint
was not found to be correct.
3. On the basis of the complaint sent by Smt.
Lily Kujur, defamatory matter has been published
against the petitioner, therefore, he also filed two
civil suits for damages and one criminal case against
Smt. Lily Kujur and others and the same have been
registered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh
and the proceeding in those cases are in progress.
Shri Nand Kumar Sai has enmity against the petitioner,
who was raising voice not only in Vidhan Sabha but also
giving press statements and was putting pressure on the
Government. Ultimately, as a result thereof, the
F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 6-5-
2004 at Police Station Kotwali, Jashpur.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, the
said F.I.R. has been registered against him with mala
fide intention and the proceedings have been initiated
maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
and the allegations leveled against him are only to
harass him and registration of F.I.R. after more than
2+ years is sheer mala fide exercise of powers by the
authorities, therefore, prayer has been made to quash
the said F.I.R., the investigation and the proceedings
arising out of the said F.I.R. To appreciate the
matter, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner on
6-5-2004 at Police Station Kotwali, Jashpur is
reproduced below : –
“eSa Fkkuk cxrrkyh t”kiqj esa uxj fujh{kd ds
in ij dk;Zjr~ gwa A vkt fnukad 6&5&2004
dks Jheku~ iqfyl v/kh- egksn; t”kiqj ds
dk;kZy; dk i= dzekad iqv@t”k@jhMj@168@04 fnukad
5&5&2004
izkIr gqvk ftlesa Jh ,e-vkj-lkjFkh ,vkbZ-,-,l-
+ rRdkyhu dysDVj ftyk&t”kiqj }kjk Jherh fyyh
dqtwj dh f”kdk;r ij vijk/k iathc) djus gsrq
ys[k gS A ftlesa fyyh dqtwj dk f”kdk;r i=
dh Nk;kizfr layXu gS A ftlds vuqlkj rRdkyhu
ftyk/;{k Jh ,e-vkj-lkjFkh }kjk fyyh dqtwj ds
lkFk cykr~ laHkksx djus dh f”kdk;r gS A
izdj.k esa /kkjk 376] 342 Hkk-n-fo- dk vijk/k
dk;e fd;k tkrk gS A ewy f”kdk;r i= pLik dh
tkrh gS A f”kdk;r vkosnu i= udy tSlk gS &
izfr ekuuh; iqfyl egkfuns”kd iqfyl gsM
DokVZj] jk;iqj] fo’k;&vkfnoklh mjkao tkfr dh
blkbZ /kekZoyEch cslgkjk vkosfndk ds lkFk
t”kiqj ds dysDVj }kjk vius in ,oa vf/kdkjksa
dk ncko izkIr dj lkr ekg rd cykRdkj djus ,oa
/kedh nsus dh fjiksVZ A
ekuuh; egksn;] lfou; izkFkZuk gS fd eSa
vkfnoklh mjkao tkfr dh fo/kok efgyk gwa ,oa
eSa blkbZ /keZ Lohdkj dh gwa rFkk eSa efgyk
,oa cky fodkl foHkkx] ftyk t”kiqj ds varxZr
vkus okys Cykd xzke&euksjk esa i;Zos{kd
,lqijokbZtj+ ds in ij inLFk gwa A eSa ftl
foHkkx esa ,efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx esa+
inLFk gwwa og ftyk dysDVj ds fu;a=.k ds v/khu
gS A vDVwcj 2002 esa t”kiqj ds dysDVj Jh
equdqjke lkjFkh us eq>s dHkh foHkkxh; tkudkjh
ysus ds cgkus rks dHkh nkSjk dk;Zdze ds cgkus
vius ?kj lqcg 8&9 cts cqykrs jgs ,oa ogka
tkus ij eq>ls foHkkxh; ckrsa u djrs gq, esjh
futh ftanxh ds ckjs esa dbZ ?kaVs rd eq>ls
iqNrkN djrs Fks tSls & rqEgkjh “kknh fdl lu~
esa gqbZ Fkh A rqe vius ifr ds lkFk fdrus
lky rd jgs gks A rqEgkjs ifr dh e`R;q dc
gqbZ A nqljh “kknh D;ksa ugha dj jgh gks A
nqljh “kknh djus dk fopkj gksxk rks eq>s
crkuk Jh equdqjke lkjFkh ds bu iz”uksa dks
lqu dj eSa ;g vuqeku yxkbZ fd os eq>s fdlh
foHkkxh; dk;Z ls ugha cqykrs cfYd viuk VkbZe
ikl djus ds fy;s cqykrs gSa A rc eSa dysDVj
ds cqykus ij muds ikl nks ckj ugha xbZ A
esjs u tkus ij Hkh lkjFkh us 16&10&2001 dks
lq’kek “kkgh uked ,d i;Zos{kd dks esjs ikl ;g
lans”k ns dj Hkstk fd rqjUr eq>s dysDVj caxyk
tkuk gS A tgka t:jh foHkkxh; ppkZ djuk gS A
lq’kek “kkgh ds cqykus ij eSa dysDVj ds caxyk
lqcg 8 ls 9 ds chp xbZ tgka tkrs gh dysDVj Jh
lkjFkh us lq’kek “kkgh ls dgk fd rqe okil pyh
tkvks vc rqEgkjk dksbZ dke ugha gS A dysDVj
}kjk lq’kek “kkgh dks okil ykSVkus ds ckn
dysDVj Jh lkjFkh eq>s vius ?kjsyq ,dkUr psEcj
esa cSBk;k blds ckn Jh lkjFkh us **cSBd
psEcj** dk njoktk cUn fd;s ,oa eq>s dgus yxs
fd rqe vkt esjs caxys esa jgks eSa rqedks
izeks”ku dj nwaxk A eSaus dysDVj Jh lkjFkh
ds izLrko dks tc Bqdjk;k rc mUgksaus eq>s o
esjs ifjokj dks tku ls ejok nsus dh ,oa
xkatk] pjl ds >wBs ekeys esa Qalok dj tsy
Hkst nsus] esjh ukSdjh [kRe dj nsus dh /kedh
nsrs gq, tcju esjs lkFk vDVwcj ekg lu~ 2001
ls cykRdkj fd;k rFkk blds ckn blh rjg ls eq>s
Mjk /kedk dj yxkrkj os esjs lkFk cykRdkj djrs
jgs eSa pwafd dysDVj ds v/khuLFk vlgk;
deZpkjh gwwa ,oa dysDVj Jh lkjFkh }kjk eq>s
lifjokj tku ls ejok nsus] ukSdjh [kRe dj
nsus] tsy esa ltk nsus dh /kefd;ka nh tk jgh
Fkh A blfy, eSa Hk;Hkhr gks xbZ ,oa mUgksaus
vius in o vf/kdkj dk nq:i;ksx dj dbZ ckj esjs
lkFk cykRdkj fd;k A cykRdkj ds iwoZ dbZ ckj
esjs lkFk dysDVj Jh lkjFkh }kjk v”yhy ppkZ
djus ds ckn tc eq>s caxyk cqyk;k x;k rc eSa
izFke cykRdkj dh ?kVuk fnukad 16&10&2001 dks
,d Vsi fjdkMZ fNik dj ys xbZ Fkh A ftlesa Jh
dysDVj Jh lkjFkh dh vkokt ,oa cykRdkj ds iwoZ
esjs fpYykus dh vkokt dh Vsi gqbZ gS A vkt
Hkh esjs ikl mijksDr Vsi ekStwn gS A Vsi
fjdkMZ lqu dj gh dysDVj ds vijk/k dh ?kVuk
izekf.kr gks tkosxh A dysDVj Jh lkjFkh tc
yxkrkj tc esjk nSfgd “kks’k.k djus yxs ,oa
esjs cnkZ”r dh lhek ikj gks xbZ rc eSaus 24
twu 2002 dks dysDVj lkjFkh ls dgk vc eSa vius
“kjhj esa vkidk vkSj vR;kpkj cnkZ”r ugha dj
ldrh vxj mlds ckn Hkh vki esjs lkFk blh rjg
dk cykRdkj djrs jgs rks eSa eq[;ea=h Jh tksxh
ls feywaxh] essjs eqag ls bruk “kCn fudyus ij
Jh lkjFkh HkM+d mBs ,oa mUgksus eq>s /kedh
fn;k fd vc rqedks eSa NRrhlxs lLisaM dj fn;k ,oa eq>s ges”kk
ds fy, N-x- ls ckgj pys tkus dh vU;Fkk tku ls
ekj nsus o xkatk] pjl ds ekeys esa tsy Hkst
nsus dh /kedh fn;k A esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks
pqdh gS rFkk esjs ifjokj esa 2 ukckfyx iq=
,oa 90 o’khZ; o`) llqj ds vykok vkSj dksbZ
ugha gS A bl rjg eSa vdsyh vlgk; efgyk gwwa
blfy, dysDVj tSls cMs+ vf/kdkjh ds fo:) eSa
fjiksVZ f”kdk;r djus dk lkgl ugha dj ldh ,oa
;fn eSa t”kiqj ds iqfyl Fkkuk ;k ,l-ih- ds
le{k fjiksVZ ;k f”kdk;r d:axh rks Jh lkjFkh
dks rqjar bldk irk py tk,xk d;ksafd iqfyl
foHkkx Hkh mUghsa ds v/khu gS A blfy, eSa
Mkd ls ;g vkosnu vkids le{k U;k; ikus gsrq
Hkst jgh gwwa A eSa ,d blkbZ /kekZoyEch
vkfnoklh tkfr dh ,d vlgk; efgyk gwwa ,oa esjh
etcwjh dk vkSj vius in dk Hkjiwj Qk;nk mBk dj
dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us esjh etcwjh dk vkSj vius
in dk Hkjiwj Qk;nk mBk dj dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us
esjh bTtr ywVk gS A eSa ekuuh; egksn; ls
U;k; dh izkFkZuk djrh gwa A lgh gLrk{kj
,fyyh dqtwj+ lqijokbZtj ,orZeku esa fuyafcr+
efgyk ,oa cky fodkl LFkk;h irk & xzke fxjkax]
iks- ckysax] ftyk & t”kiqj ,N-x-+
13- dk;Zokgh tks dh xbZ % mijksDr fooj.k ls
/kkjk 376] 342 rk-fg- dk izdj.k dj foospuk
esa fy;k x;k @ ugha fy;k x;k rFkk ———–
dh izdj.k foospuk esa fy;k x;k] ;k
{ks=kf/kdkj ds n`f’Vxr Fkkuk &&&&&&&& ftyk
&&&&&&&&&&&&&& dks LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k ;k na-
iz-la- dh /kkjk 154 **c** ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh
dh xbZ A
vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ dks iz-lw-i=
i<+okdj@i<+dj lquk;k x;k] ftUgksus lgh&lgh
vfHkfyf[kr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k A bldh ,d izfr
lwpukdrkZ dks fu%"kqYd iznk; dh x;h A
vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ ds gLrk{kj@fu"kkuh vaxwBk
,ua- ;fn gS+ t"kiqj
izfr]
ekuuh; U;k;ky; lh-ts-,e- egksn;] t"kiqj
dh vksj lwpukFkZA"
5. The petitioner, placing reliance on Ashok
Chaturvedi and others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and
another, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 698, Pepsi Foods Ltd.
and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others,
reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, M.N.Damani vs. S.K.Sinha
and others, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 156, Union of
India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, reported in
2003 Cri.L.J. 3117, contended that, if the F.I.R. and
the statement of witnesses are considered on their face
value, no offence is made out against him and,
therefore, the F.I.R., the investigation and all the
proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are required
to be quashed. The petitioner also contended that, the
enquiry reports of the Chhattisgarh Minority Commission
and the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur are
also required to be considered to determine that the
complaint has been made against him only to take
revenge with some political ulterior motive and with
mala fide intentions.
6. During the arguments, the petitioner
submitted that, he, during his tenure as Collector,
Jashpur, cancelled some revenue patta granted to family
members of Shri Nand Kumar Sai, the then Opposition
Leader in Vidhan Sabha and also initiated proceedings
to disqualify her daughter to be Janpad Panchayat
Adhyaksh. It is contended that, the said F.I.R.
against him is the result of the abovementioned
enmities with Shri Nand Kumar Sai. The F.I.R. has not
been lodged by Shri Nand Kumar Sai nor it could be
shown that Shri Nand Kumar Sai has any interest to
support this case against the petitioner. Being a
leader if he raised some voice in Vidhan Sabha or gave
statements to newspapers, it cannot be said that
raising voice by him can declare the allegations
leveled by Smt. Lily Kujur against the petitioner to be
false.
7. The petitioner raised his further contention
that, the date referred by Smt. Lily Kujur i.e. 16-10-
2001 to be the first date when she was raped by him is
completely false. During the enquiry made by the
Chhattisgarh Minority Commission and the Commissioner,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, T.A. Bills claimed by Smt.
Lily Kujur have been considered, and in the said claim,
Smt. Lily Kujur has shown herself to be on tour on 16-
10-2001. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and
2/State has made it clear that, during the
investigation, Smt. Lily Kujur has been examined under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and she has explained the
said situation and clarified that, on 16-10-2001, she
was not on tour as shown in her T.A. Claim.
8. From perusal of the report submitted by the
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, it is
manifest that, how the tour, said to be performed on 16-
10-2001 by Smt. Lily Kujur, is false, has been very
specifically narrated with particulars by one of
revenue officers Shri Pradhan in his complaint, and the
details have been described in the report of the
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur.
9. This is not the stage where it is to be
decided that Smt. Lily Kujur was in fact on tour on 16-
10-2001 or was present at Jashpur and that too in the
bungalow of Collector, Jashpur, but this fact is to be
determined in accordance with the established
principles of law and during the trial.
10. The second date referred to by the petitioner
is 24-6-2002. The contention of the petitioner is
that, the allegation leveled by the prosecutrix
regarding incident took place on 24-6-2002 is false,
because on that date, he was at Ranchi for medical
check up. May the contention be true, but this is in
fact a plea of alibi taken by the petitioner which
requires to be proved by substantial evidence in a
Court of law and that too during the trial and not at
this juncture.
11. The further contention of the petitioner is
that, he has filed two civil suits claiming damages for
the said malicious prosecution and has also filed a
complaint under Section 500 of the I.P.C. against Smt.
Lily Kujur and those case have been registered by Chief
Judicial Magistrate and proceedings therein are going
on. This contention has no relevance with reference to
declaring the F.I.R. false.
12. The petitioner further contended that, rape
has been defined in Section 375 of the I.P.C., and
according to that definition, not a single ingredient
to hold the allegations leveled against him within the
ambit of rape is there. From bare reading of the
F.I.R., it is apparent that, Smt. Lily Kujur has
specifically alleged in her complaint that, the
petitioner bolted the door of his chamber and allured
her for promotion, and on her refusal, gave her various
threats, and by threatening, forcibly committed rape on
her. She has also reported that, because of various
threats, she, being a subordinate employee of the
petitioner, was afraid, and the petitioner, misusing
his authority, committed rape on her, and continued the
physical relation from time to time. Section 375 of
the I.P.C. defines the offence of rape. Its first
clause unveils that if sexual intercourse is against
the will of a woman that will amount to rape. In third
clause, it has been provided that if the consent has
been obtained putting her in fear, in that case also,
the sexual intercourse will amount to rape. Prima
facie the allegations are in the ambit of these two
clauses. Apart from that, the threats given to Smt.
Lily Kujur, as alleged in the F.I.R., also disclose the
offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C.
Closing the door and detaining a lady inside the
chamber also prima facie disclose the offence
punishable under Section 342 of the I.P.C. Therefore,
the allegations made in the complaint are not such,
which, if taken to be true, are not disclosing any
offence.
13. No other point has been raised in the
arguments.
14. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
view that, at this juncture, there is no substance to
hold that the F.I.R. is false. Therefore, it is not
liable to be quashed and accordingly the investigation
and proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are also
not liable to be quashed.
15. The petition, filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.
JUDGE
11-2-2005