{"id":228270,"date":"2005-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005"},"modified":"2018-12-27T08:51:01","modified_gmt":"2018-12-27T03:21:01","slug":"munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR      \n\n          M.Cr.C. No.1359 of 2004\n\n          Munku Ram Sarthi, Raipur (C.G.)\n                                        .....Petitioner\n                    versus\n          1.  The State of Chhattisgarh.\n           2.  Station House Officer, Jashpur (CG).\n           3.  Smt. Lily Kujur, P.O. Gholeng, Jashpur (CG).\n                                        ......Respondents\n\n!          Shri P.Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri\n           P.S.Koshy, Shri     Raj Kumar Gupta, Shri Vinod\n           Deshmukh, counsel for the     petitioner.\n\n^          Shri Pramod Verma, Additional Advocate General\n           with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Shri Sanjeev Kumar\n           Agrawal, Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Panel Lawyers for the\n           respondent Nos.1 and 2\/State.\n\n           Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the respondent\n           No.3.\n\n\n          HON'BLE  SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA        \n\n\n          Dated:  11\/02\/2005\n\n:          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
1.         The petitioner has filed this petition under<\/p>\n
Section  482  of the Cr.P.C. for quashing  and  setting<\/p>\n
aside  the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Kotwali,<\/p>\n
Jashpur   on  6-5-2004,  the  investigation   and   the<\/p>\n
proceedings pending in Crime No.113\/2004 on  the  basis<\/p>\n
of  the  said  F.I.R.  For deciding this petition,  the<\/p>\n
facts  in brief compass are that, the petitioner is  an<\/p>\n
I.A.S.  Officer,  who was posted as Collector,  Jashpur<\/p>\n
from  4-12-2000 to 2-1-2003.  The respondent No.3, Smt.<\/p>\n
Lily   Kujur,  during  that  period,  was   posted   as<\/p>\n
Supervisor  in  the Woman and Child Welfare  Department <\/p>\n
and  the  said  Department was  under  control  of  the<\/p>\n
Collector,  Jashpur.  Smt. Lily Kujur sent a  complaint<\/p>\n
to   various   higher  authorities   including   Police<\/p>\n
specifically alleging that the petitioner, who was  the<\/p>\n
Collector,  Jashpur,  very  often  called  her  to  his<\/p>\n
bungalow,  and  instead  of  official  work,  on   such<\/p>\n
pretext, used to talk about her personal life.  On  16-<\/p>\n
10-2001, she was called by the petitioner.  She refused<\/p>\n
to  go,  then  a message was given to her  through  her<\/p>\n
colleague  Supervisor  Smt.  Sushma  Shahi  that,   the<\/p>\n
Collector,  Jashpur has called her for  official  work.<\/p>\n
Therefore, she visited the Collector’s bungalow,  where<\/p>\n
the  petitioner gave her various threats,  and  putting<\/p>\n
her  in  fear,  committed rape on  her  and  thereafter<\/p>\n
continued  the physical relation till 24-6-2002.   When<\/p>\n
Smt.  Lily  Kujur,  on 24-6-2002,  finally  refused  to<\/p>\n
surrender herself for intercourse and threatened him to<\/p>\n
report  the matter to Chief Minister, she was suspended<\/p>\n
from her duty on 26-6-2002 by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
2.          The  State  Government,  on  receiving  the<\/p>\n
complaint  of Smt. Lily Kujur, to know the  correctness<\/p>\n
of  her  allegations,  requested Chhattisgarh  Minority<\/p>\n
Commission  to  make necessary enquiry and  submit  its <\/p>\n
report.   The Chhattisgarh Minority Commission,  headed<\/p>\n
by   Shri  Ranjan  Dayal,  after  due  enquiry,  taking<\/p>\n
statement of various witnesses and considering  various<\/p>\n
records,  found the allegations leveled  by  Smt.  Lily<\/p>\n
Kujur to be false and accordingly submitted its report.<\/p>\n
In  the  capacity of Collector, Jashpur, the petitioner<\/p>\n
passed  some orders canceling the revenue patta  issued<\/p>\n
in favour of family members of Shri Nand Kumar Sai, the<\/p>\n
Opposition  Leader in Vidhan Sabha and also took  steps<\/p>\n
to  declare  her daughter disqualified to  continue  as<\/p>\n
Janpad  Panchayat  Member.  As a result  thereof,  Shri<\/p>\n
Nand  Kumar Sai started raising the issue of Smt.  Lily<\/p>\n
Kujur,  therefore,  again the matter  was  referred  to<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur for  enquiry.<\/p>\n
The  Commissioner,  Bilaspur  Division,  Bilaspur  Shri<\/p>\n
Narayan  Singh, in his enquiry, examined  a  number  of<\/p>\n
witnesses and considered various documents, T.A.  Bills<\/p>\n
encashed by Smt. Lily Kujur and her colleague, log book<\/p>\n
maintained  by the driver of the petitioner  and  other<\/p>\n
documents.    The   Commissioner,  Bilaspur   Division,<\/p>\n
Bilaspur  was  not  only referred to enquire  into  the<\/p>\n
allegations made by Smt. Lily Kujur but also  a  number<\/p>\n
of complaints made against the petitioner were referred<\/p>\n
to him for enquiry.  As regards the allegations made by<\/p>\n
Smt. Lily Kujur, although no specific clear finding has<\/p>\n
been given by the Commissioner in his report, impliedly<\/p>\n
the  said  report suggests that the complaint  made  by<\/p>\n
Smt.  Lily  Kujur  was not tallying  with  the  factual<\/p>\n
matrix  and available documents or to say the complaint<\/p>\n
was not found to be correct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.         On  the basis of the complaint sent by  Smt.<\/p>\n
Lily   Kujur,  defamatory  matter  has  been  published<\/p>\n
against  the petitioner, therefore, he also  filed  two<\/p>\n
civil  suits for damages and one criminal case  against<\/p>\n
Smt.  Lily  Kujur  and others and the  same  have  been<\/p>\n
registered  by  the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Raigarh<\/p>\n
and  the  proceeding in those cases  are  in  progress.<\/p>\n
Shri  Nand Kumar Sai has enmity against the petitioner,<\/p>\n
who was raising voice not only in Vidhan Sabha but also<\/p>\n
giving press statements and was putting pressure on the<\/p>\n
Government.   Ultimately, as  a  result  thereof,   the<\/p>\n
F.I.R.  was registered against the petitioner  on  6-5-<\/p>\n
2004 at Police Station Kotwali, Jashpur.<\/p>\n
4.        The contention of the petitioner is that, the<\/p>\n
said  F.I.R. has been registered against him with  mala<\/p>\n
fide  intention and the proceedings have been initiated<\/p>\n
maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance<\/p>\n
and  the  allegations leveled against him are  only  to<\/p>\n
harass  him and registration of F.I.R. after more  than<\/p>\n
2+  years is sheer mala fide exercise of powers by  the<\/p>\n
authorities, therefore, prayer has been made  to  quash<\/p>\n
the  said F.I.R., the investigation and the proceedings<\/p>\n
arising  out  of  the said F.I.R.   To  appreciate  the<\/p>\n
matter, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner on<\/p>\n
6-5-2004   at  Police  Station  Kotwali,   Jashpur   is<\/p>\n
reproduced below  : –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “eSa Fkkuk cxrrkyh t”kiqj esa uxj fujh{kd ds
\nin  ij dk;Zjr~ gwa A                vkt fnukad 6&5&2004
\ndks    Jheku~    iqfyl   v\/kh-   egksn;    t”kiqj    ds
\ndk;kZy;   dk   i=  dzekad  iqv@t”k@jhMj@168@04   fnukad
\n5&5&2004
\n          izkIr gqvk ftlesa Jh ,e-vkj-lkjFkh ,vkbZ-,-,l-
\n          +  rRdkyhu dysDVj ftyk&t”kiqj }kjk Jherh fyyh
\n          dqtwj  dh f”kdk;r ij vijk\/k iathc) djus  gsrq
\n          ys[k  gS A   ftlesa fyyh dqtwj dk f”kdk;r  i=
\n          dh Nk;kizfr layXu gS A   ftlds vuqlkj rRdkyhu
\n          ftyk\/;{k Jh ,e-vkj-lkjFkh }kjk fyyh dqtwj  ds
\n          lkFk  cykr~  laHkksx djus  dh  f”kdk;r  gS  A
\n          izdj.k esa \/kkjk 376] 342 Hkk-n-fo- dk vijk\/k
\n          dk;e  fd;k tkrk gS A  ewy f”kdk;r i= pLik  dh
\n          tkrh gS A   f”kdk;r vkosnu i= udy tSlk gS &<\/p>\n
                izfr ekuuh; iqfyl egkfuns”kd iqfyl  gsM
\n          DokVZj] jk;iqj] fo’k;&vkfnoklh mjkao tkfr  dh
\n          blkbZ  \/kekZoyEch  cslgkjk vkosfndk  ds  lkFk
\n          t”kiqj  ds dysDVj }kjk vius in ,oa vf\/kdkjksa
\n          dk  ncko izkIr dj lkr ekg rd cykRdkj djus ,oa
\n          \/kedh nsus dh fjiksVZ A<\/p>\n
          ekuuh; egksn;]      lfou; izkFkZuk gS fd  eSa
\n          vkfnoklh mjkao tkfr dh fo\/kok efgyk  gwa  ,oa
\n          eSa  blkbZ \/keZ Lohdkj dh gwa rFkk eSa  efgyk
\n          ,oa  cky fodkl foHkkx] ftyk t”kiqj ds  varxZr
\n          vkus   okys  Cykd  xzke&euksjk  esa  i;Zos{kd
\n          ,lqijokbZtj+ ds in ij inLFk gwa  A   eSa  ftl
\n          foHkkx  esa ,efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx  esa+
\n          inLFk gwwa og ftyk dysDVj ds fu;a=.k ds v\/khu
\n          gS  A   vDVwcj 2002 esa t”kiqj ds  dysDVj  Jh
\n          equdqjke lkjFkh us eq>s dHkh foHkkxh; tkudkjh
\n          ysus ds cgkus rks dHkh nkSjk dk;Zdze ds cgkus
\n          vius  ?kj  lqcg 8&9 cts cqykrs jgs  ,oa  ogka
\n          tkus  ij eq>ls foHkkxh; ckrsa u djrs gq, esjh
\n          futh  ftanxh ds ckjs esa dbZ ?kaVs  rd  eq>ls
\n          iqNrkN djrs Fks tSls & rqEgkjh “kknh fdl  lu~
\n          esa  gqbZ Fkh A   rqe  vius ifr ds lkFk fdrus
\n          lky  rd  jgs gks A  rqEgkjs ifr dh  e`R;q  dc
\n          gqbZ  A  nqljh “kknh D;ksa ugha dj jgh gks  A
\n          nqljh  “kknh  djus dk fopkj  gksxk  rks  eq>s
\n          crkuk  Jh  equdqjke lkjFkh ds bu iz”uksa  dks
\n          lqu  dj  eSa ;g vuqeku yxkbZ fd os eq>s  fdlh
\n          foHkkxh; dk;Z ls ugha cqykrs cfYd viuk  VkbZe
\n          ikl  djus ds fy;s cqykrs gSa A  rc eSa dysDVj
\n          ds  cqykus  ij muds ikl nks ckj  ugha  xbZ  A
\n          esjs  u tkus ij Hkh lkjFkh us 16&10&2001  dks
\n          lq’kek “kkgh uked ,d i;Zos{kd dks esjs ikl ;g
\n          lans”k ns dj Hkstk fd rqjUr eq>s dysDVj caxyk
\n          tkuk gS A  tgka t:jh foHkkxh; ppkZ djuk gS  A
\n          lq’kek “kkgh ds cqykus ij eSa dysDVj ds caxyk
\n          lqcg 8 ls 9 ds chp xbZ tgka tkrs gh dysDVj Jh
\n          lkjFkh us lq’kek “kkgh ls dgk fd rqe okil pyh
\n          tkvks  vc rqEgkjk dksbZ dke ugha gS A  dysDVj
\n          }kjk  lq’kek  “kkgh dks okil ykSVkus  ds  ckn
\n          dysDVj Jh lkjFkh eq>s vius ?kjsyq ,dkUr psEcj
\n          esa  cSBk;k  blds  ckn Jh  lkjFkh  us  **cSBd
\n          psEcj** dk njoktk cUn fd;s ,oa eq>s dgus  yxs
\n          fd  rqe  vkt  esjs caxys esa jgks eSa  rqedks
\n          izeks”ku  dj nwaxk A  eSaus dysDVj Jh  lkjFkh
\n          ds  izLrko dks tc Bqdjk;k rc mUgksaus eq>s  o
\n          esjs  ifjokj  dks  tku ls ejok  nsus  dh  ,oa
\n          xkatk]  pjl  ds >wBs ekeys esa Qalok  dj  tsy
\n          Hkst  nsus] esjh ukSdjh [kRe dj nsus dh \/kedh
\n          nsrs  gq, tcju esjs lkFk vDVwcj ekg lu~  2001
\n          ls cykRdkj fd;k rFkk blds ckn blh rjg ls eq>s
\n          Mjk \/kedk dj yxkrkj os esjs lkFk cykRdkj djrs
\n          jgs   eSa  pwafd  dysDVj  ds  v\/khuLFk  vlgk;
\n          deZpkjh  gwwa ,oa dysDVj Jh lkjFkh }kjk  eq>s
\n          lifjokj  tku  ls  ejok nsus] ukSdjh  [kRe  dj
\n          nsus] tsy esa ltk nsus dh \/kefd;ka nh tk  jgh
\n          Fkh A  blfy, eSa Hk;Hkhr gks xbZ ,oa mUgksaus
\n          vius in o vf\/kdkj dk nq:i;ksx dj dbZ ckj esjs
\n          lkFk cykRdkj fd;k A  cykRdkj ds iwoZ dbZ  ckj
\n          esjs  lkFk  dysDVj Jh lkjFkh }kjk v”yhy  ppkZ
\n          djus  ds ckn tc eq>s caxyk cqyk;k x;k rc  eSa
\n          izFke cykRdkj dh ?kVuk fnukad 16&10&2001  dks
\n          ,d Vsi fjdkMZ fNik dj ys xbZ Fkh A  ftlesa Jh
\n          dysDVj Jh lkjFkh dh vkokt ,oa cykRdkj ds iwoZ
\n          esjs  fpYykus dh vkokt dh Vsi gqbZ gS A   vkt
\n          Hkh  esjs  ikl mijksDr Vsi ekStwn gS  A   Vsi
\n          fjdkMZ  lqu dj gh dysDVj ds vijk\/k  dh  ?kVuk
\n          izekf.kr  gks tkosxh A  dysDVj Jh  lkjFkh  tc
\n          yxkrkj  tc esjk nSfgd “kks’k.k djus  yxs  ,oa
\n          esjs  cnkZ”r dh lhek ikj gks xbZ rc eSaus  24
\n          twu 2002 dks dysDVj lkjFkh ls dgk vc eSa vius
\n          “kjhj  esa vkidk vkSj vR;kpkj cnkZ”r ugha  dj
\n          ldrh  vxj mlds ckn Hkh vki esjs lkFk blh  rjg
\n          dk cykRdkj djrs jgs rks eSa eq[;ea=h Jh tksxh
\n          ls feywaxh] essjs eqag ls bruk “kCn fudyus ij
\n          Jh  lkjFkh  HkM+d mBs ,oa mUgksus eq>s  \/kedh
\n          fn;k  fd vc rqedks eSa NRrhlxs lLisaM dj fn;k ,oa eq>s ges”kk
\n          ds fy, N-x- ls ckgj pys tkus dh vU;Fkk tku ls
\n          ekj  nsus o xkatk] pjl ds ekeys esa tsy  Hkst
\n          nsus  dh \/kedh fn;k A  esjs ifr dh e`R;q  gks
\n          pqdh  gS  rFkk esjs ifjokj esa 2 ukckfyx  iq=
\n          ,oa  90  o’khZ; o`) llqj ds vykok vkSj  dksbZ
\n          ugha  gS A  bl rjg eSa vdsyh vlgk; efgyk gwwa
\n          blfy,  dysDVj tSls cMs+ vf\/kdkjh ds fo:)  eSa
\n          fjiksVZ f”kdk;r djus dk lkgl ugha dj ldh  ,oa
\n          ;fn  eSa  t”kiqj ds iqfyl Fkkuk ;k ,l-ih-  ds
\n          le{k  fjiksVZ ;k f”kdk;r d:axh rks Jh  lkjFkh
\n          dks  rqjar  bldk irk py tk,xk  d;ksafd  iqfyl
\n          foHkkx  Hkh mUghsa ds v\/khu gS A   blfy,  eSa
\n          Mkd  ls  ;g vkosnu vkids le{k U;k; ikus  gsrq
\n          Hkst  jgh  gwwa  A   eSa ,d blkbZ  \/kekZoyEch
\n          vkfnoklh tkfr dh ,d vlgk; efgyk gwwa ,oa esjh
\n          etcwjh dk vkSj vius in dk Hkjiwj Qk;nk mBk dj
\n          dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us esjh etcwjh dk vkSj  vius
\n          in dk Hkjiwj Qk;nk mBk dj dysDVj Jh lkjFkh us
\n          esjh  bTtr  ywVk gS A  eSa ekuuh;  egksn;  ls
\n          U;k;  dh  izkFkZuk djrh gwa  A   lgh  gLrk{kj
\n          ,fyyh  dqtwj+ lqijokbZtj ,orZeku esa fuyafcr+
\n          efgyk ,oa cky fodkl LFkk;h irk & xzke fxjkax]
\n          iks- ckysax] ftyk & t”kiqj ,N-x-+<\/p>\n
          13-  dk;Zokgh tks dh xbZ %  mijksDr fooj.k ls
\n          \/kkjk  376]  342 rk-fg- dk izdj.k dj  foospuk
\n          esa fy;k x;k @ ugha fy;k x;k rFkk ———–\n<\/p>\n
          dh    izdj.k  foospuk  esa  fy;k   x;k]    ;k
\n          {ks=kf\/kdkj  ds  n`f’Vxr  Fkkuk &&&&&&&& ftyk
\n          &&&&&&&&&&&&&& dks LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k ;k na-
\n          iz-la-  dh \/kkjk 154 **c** ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh
\n          dh xbZ A
\n          vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ       dks        iz-lw-i=
\n          i<+okdj@i<+dj  lquk;k x;k]  ftUgksus  lgh&lgh
\n          vfHkfyf[kr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k A  bldh ,d  izfr
\n          lwpukdrkZ dks fu%"kqYd iznk; dh x;h A<\/p>\n
          vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ ds gLrk{kj@fu"kkuh vaxwBk
\n          ,ua- ;fn gS+ t"kiqj<\/p>\n
          izfr]
\n                ekuuh; U;k;ky; lh-ts-,e- egksn;] t"kiqj
\n          dh vksj lwpukFkZA"\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.         The  petitioner, placing reliance  on  Ashok<\/p>\n
Chaturvedi  and  others  vs. Shitul  H.  Chanchani  and<\/a><\/p>\n
another, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 698, Pepsi Foods Ltd.<\/p>\n
and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others,<\/p>\n
reported  in (1998) 5 SCC 749, M.N.Damani vs. S.K.Sinha <\/p>\n
and  others<\/a>,  reported in (2001) 5 SCC  156,  Union  of<\/p>\n
India  vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and<\/a> another, reported  in<\/p>\n
2003  Cri.L.J. 3117, contended that, if the F.I.R.  and<\/p>\n
the statement of witnesses are considered on their face<\/p>\n
value,  no  offence  is  made  out  against  him   and,<\/p>\n
therefore,  the F.I.R., the investigation and  all  the<\/p>\n
proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are required<\/p>\n
to be quashed.  The petitioner also contended that, the<\/p>\n
enquiry reports of the Chhattisgarh Minority Commission<\/p>\n
and  the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur  are<\/p>\n
also  required to be considered to determine  that  the<\/p>\n
complaint  has  been  made against  him  only  to  take<\/p>\n
revenge  with some political ulterior motive  and  with<\/p>\n
mala fide intentions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.          During   the   arguments,  the   petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted  that,  he, during his tenure  as  Collector,<\/p>\n
Jashpur, cancelled some revenue patta granted to family<\/p>\n
members  of  Shri  Nand Kumar Sai, the then  Opposition<\/p>\n
Leader  in  Vidhan Sabha and also initiated proceedings<\/p>\n
to  disqualify  her  daughter to  be  Janpad  Panchayat<\/p>\n
Adhyaksh.   It  is  contended  that,  the  said  F.I.R.<\/p>\n
against   him  is  the  result  of  the  abovementioned<\/p>\n
enmities with Shri Nand Kumar Sai. The F.I.R.  has  not<\/p>\n
been  lodged  by Shri Nand Kumar Sai nor  it  could  be<\/p>\n
shown  that  Shri  Nand Kumar Sai has any  interest  to<\/p>\n
support  this  case  against the petitioner.   Being  a<\/p>\n
leader if he raised some voice in Vidhan Sabha or  gave<\/p>\n
statements  to  newspapers,  it  cannot  be  said  that<\/p>\n
raising  voice  by  him  can  declare  the  allegations<\/p>\n
leveled by Smt. Lily Kujur against the petitioner to be<\/p>\n
false.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.         The petitioner raised his further contention<\/p>\n
that,  the date referred by Smt. Lily Kujur i.e. 16-10-<\/p>\n
2001 to be the first date when she was raped by him  is<\/p>\n
completely  false.   During the  enquiry  made  by  the<\/p>\n
Chhattisgarh  Minority Commission and the Commissioner,  <\/p>\n
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, T.A. Bills claimed by Smt.<\/p>\n
Lily Kujur have been considered, and in the said claim,<\/p>\n
Smt. Lily Kujur has shown herself to be on tour on  16-<\/p>\n
10-2001.  Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1  and<\/p>\n
2\/State   has   made   it  clear   that,   during   the<\/p>\n
investigation, Smt. Lily Kujur has been examined  under<\/p>\n
Section  161  of the Cr.P.C. and she has explained  the<\/p>\n
said  situation and clarified that, on 16-10-2001,  she<\/p>\n
was not on tour as shown in her T.A. Claim.<\/p>\n
8.         From perusal of the report submitted by  the<\/p>\n
Commissioner,  Bilaspur  Division,  Bilaspur,   it   is<\/p>\n
manifest that, how the tour, said to be performed on 16-<\/p>\n
10-2001  by  Smt. Lily Kujur, is false, has  been  very<\/p>\n
specifically  narrated  with  particulars  by  one   of<\/p>\n
revenue officers Shri Pradhan in his complaint, and the<\/p>\n
details  have  been  described in  the  report  of  the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur.<\/p>\n
9.         This  is  not the stage where it  is  to  be<\/p>\n
decided that Smt. Lily Kujur was in fact on tour on 16-<\/p>\n
10-2001 or was present at Jashpur and that too  in  the<\/p>\n
bungalow of Collector, Jashpur, but this fact is to  be<\/p>\n
determined   in   accordance   with   the   established<\/p>\n
principles of law and during the trial.<\/p>\n
10.       The second date referred to by the petitioner<\/p>\n
is  24-6-2002.   The  contention of the  petitioner  is<\/p>\n
that,   the   allegation  leveled  by  the  prosecutrix<\/p>\n
regarding  incident took place on 24-6-2002  is  false,<\/p>\n
because  on  that  date, he was at Ranchi  for  medical<\/p>\n
check  up.  May the contention be true, but this is  in<\/p>\n
fact  a  plea  of  alibi taken by the petitioner  which<\/p>\n
requires  to  be proved by substantial  evidence  in  a<\/p>\n
Court  of law and that too during the trial and not  at<\/p>\n
this juncture.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.        The further contention of the petitioner  is<\/p>\n
that, he has filed two civil suits claiming damages for<\/p>\n
the  said  malicious prosecution and has also  filed  a<\/p>\n
complaint under Section 500 of the I.P.C. against  Smt.<\/p>\n
Lily Kujur and those case have been registered by Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial  Magistrate and proceedings therein are  going<\/p>\n
on.  This contention has no relevance with reference to<\/p>\n
declaring the F.I.R. false.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.        The petitioner further contended that,  rape<\/p>\n
has  been  defined in Section 375 of  the  I.P.C.,  and<\/p>\n
according  to that definition, not a single  ingredient<\/p>\n
to  hold the allegations leveled against him within the<\/p>\n
ambit  of  rape  is there.  From bare  reading  of  the<\/p>\n
F.I.R.,  it  is  apparent that,  Smt.  Lily  Kujur  has<\/p>\n
specifically  alleged  in  her  complaint   that,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  bolted the door of his chamber and  allured<\/p>\n
her for promotion, and on her refusal, gave her various<\/p>\n
threats, and by threatening, forcibly committed rape on<\/p>\n
her.   She  has also reported that, because of  various<\/p>\n
threats,  she,  being  a subordinate  employee  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  was  afraid, and the petitioner,  misusing<\/p>\n
his authority, committed rape on her, and continued the<\/p>\n
physical relation from time to time.   Section  375  of<\/p>\n
the  I.P.C.  defines the offence of  rape.   Its  first<\/p>\n
clause  unveils that if sexual intercourse  is  against<\/p>\n
the will of a woman that will amount to rape.  In third<\/p>\n
clause,  it  has been provided that if the consent  has<\/p>\n
been  obtained putting her in fear, in that case  also,<\/p>\n
the  sexual  intercourse will amount  to  rape.   Prima<\/p>\n
facie  the  allegations are in the ambit of  these  two<\/p>\n
clauses.   Apart from that, the threats given  to  Smt.<\/p>\n
Lily Kujur, as alleged in the F.I.R., also disclose the<\/p>\n
offence  punishable under Section  506  of  the  I.P.C.<\/p>\n
Closing  the  door  and detaining  a  lady  inside  the<\/p>\n
chamber   also   prima  facie  disclose   the   offence<\/p>\n
punishable  under Section 342 of the I.P.C.  Therefore,<\/p>\n
the  allegations made in the complaint  are  not  such,<\/p>\n
which,  if  taken  to be true, are not  disclosing  any<\/p>\n
offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.        No  other  point  has  been  raised  in  the<\/p>\n
arguments.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.        From the aforesaid discussion, I am  of  the<\/p>\n
view  that, at this juncture, there is no substance  to<\/p>\n
hold  that the F.I.R. is false.  Therefore, it  is  not<\/p>\n
liable  to be quashed and accordingly the investigation<\/p>\n
and proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are also<\/p>\n
not liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.        The petition, filed under Section 482 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.,  is  liable to be dismissed and is accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             JUDGE
\n                                             11-2-2005<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 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, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMunku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-27T03:21:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-27T03:21:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3129,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-27T03:21:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-27T03:21:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-27T03:21:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005"},"wordCount":3129,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005","name":"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-27T03:21:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munku-ram-sarthi-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-11-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munku Ram Sarthi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228270\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}